TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Michael Feldman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Michael Feldman <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 4 Nov 1996 21:40:54 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (36 lines)
>
> Ada does show up at other interesting little conferences
> such at Embedded Systems.
>
> Perhaps, given the NRC report, more energy should be
> spent in getting visibility into the embedded systems
> market.

Does anyone else find it strange and ironic that Ada, originally
conceived for what were then called DoD embedded systems, has such
a weak presence in the current embedded systems world?

Are we really dealing with two completely different definitions
of "embedded"?

In one sense, the NRC report is taking Ada back to its roots,
if we read "war-fighting" as approximately "embedded".

> Obviously, the trade off is between trying to get Ada
> into non-traditional Ada environments vs. deeper penetration
> into the markets in which Ada has demonstrated success.

I guess this is a standard business tradeoff, isn't it?

Reading the full NRC report (admittedly not all the fine print,
but a quick reading), I was struck by the rather weak presentation
of Ada's demonstrable successes. The strongest case was made on the
basis of 50 MLOC of installed base. Not to be sneezed at, but - one
could argue - damning with faint praise. Very little was made of
Ada's strong presence in such war-fighting-related domains as ATC
and commercial avionics. That was disappointing.

So Joyce, which markets do you think could be more deeply penetrated?

Mike Feldman

ATOM RSS1 RSS2