TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

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

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

Print Reply
"Kester, Rush W." <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:36:36 -0500
text/plain (170 lines)
Check out http://www.seas.gwu.edu/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/adajobs/browse.cgi
The most recent job was posted for the US is in Houston, TX (posted
11/15/01)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suzie Cube [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 4:30 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Future with Ada
>
>
> Having relocated just over a year ago, I find myself once
> again in the job
> market (a post-9-11 layoff).
>
> I am finding that most, if not all, the Ada jobs will require another
> relocation.  I had hoped that that would not be the case in
> the Dallas/Fort
> Worth Metroplex.  Lockheed Martin cites no language in their
> JSF postings,
> and conversations here (cla) indicate it's not Ada.  (It would be a
> relocation, too, from east Dallas 'burb, to west FW company,
> but that's
> o.k.)  Other companies appear to have converted to other
> languages or sent
> their Ada work elsewhere... or just aren't hiring now.
>
> www.flipdog.com and www.headhunter.net seem to be better than
> www.monster.com, but the boards at AdaIC are not very helpful
> (few jobs, out
> of date).  It would certainly help to match Ada-friendly
> companies with the
> qualified Ada programmers they need if there was more
> up-to-date information
> there (or somewhere!)
>
> In the meantime, if someone out there wants to get a finder's fee for
> referring a dyed-in-the-wool-Ada-fanatic... er, ahem, experienced Ada
> software engineer... (veteran of JUG, AdaJUG, AdaTec, SIGAda,
> Ada Follies
> Working Group...), well, you know where I am.
>
> PS Norby
>
> "Richard Riehle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message
> news:3C0924D6.2B5A3087@adaworks.com...
> > "ben@NO_SPAM_EMAIL" wrote:
> >
> > > That is funny. It is almost impossible to find any Ada
> wanted ads these
> days.
> > > Actually there are more openings for almost any other
> language than for
> Ada.
> > >
> > > Can you point to ONE commerical Ada opening right now
> that requires no
> > > active security clearance in the US? I bet you there is none.
> >
> > Over and over, we encounter companies who, after deciding
> to use Ada for
> > its technological advantages, cannot hire qualified Ada
> programmers.  Our
> > most recent experience was a company in Silicon Valley.
> They were excited
> > about using Ada, asked us to train some of the people, and
> then tried to
> hire
> > more programmers to do Ada.   They found it nearly
> impossible to find
> > people with experience in their domain,  sufficient
> mathematics, and lots
> > of experience in Ada.   Sadly, they finally decided to use
> C++ because it
> > was so much easier to find programmers.
> >
> > We encounter this same problem with DoD contractors.    One
> reason I am
> given
> > by major DoD software developers, for their choice of C++
> is availability
> > of personnel.   Often they admit the superiority of Ada but
> justify their
> choice
> > of C++ or Java on the basis of the difficulty of hiring Ada
> programmers.
> >
> > In those same organizations, many programmers don't want to
> program in Ada
> > because they see few commercial opportunities for that
> skill.    These
> programmers
> > don't care whether Ada is a better language.  They care
> about the future
> of their
> > career.   The companies don't care whether Ada is superior
> to C++.   They
> > often admit it is.  They do care about being able to hire
> people who want
> to
> > program in Ada.
> >
> > One can dismiss this as a "chicken and egg" problem.
> However, it is a
> problem
> > that needs solving.   There are still a few brave non-DoD
> managers out
> there who
> > are
> > enjoying the benefits of Ada and would choose nothing else.
>  This kind of
> > enlightenment is not as widespread as we might like.
> >
> > If the DoD had not given the impression of abandoning Ada
> when it did,  we
> might
> > be a lot further ahead.   Yes, I know, abandonment was not
> the intention
> of the
> > letter that abrogated the mandate, but that is how it is widely
> interpreted by both
> >
> > DoD contractors and commercial organizations that might
> have chosen it.
> We
> > need to raise the visibility of Ada in the media, and among
> our non-Ada
> colleagues.
> >
> > At present, no one is making any effective effort to make
> Ada visible and
> attactive
> >
> > to the larger software community.   Nothing is being done
> to promote it
> among the
> > software managers at DoD contractor sites, not to mention
> the non-DoD
> sites.
> >
> > Those commercial organizations who have chosen Ada have done so on
> > the basis of their own wisdom.    They benefit from that
> choice and rarely
> see the
> > benefit of proseletyzing their competitors.
> >
> > As a technology, I believe Ada is still a better choice for
> many software
> domains.
> > It is going to take something more than better technology
> to make the
> difference. A
> >
> > long time ago, Ralph Crafts was a powerful spokesman for
> the industry.  He
> finally
> > gave up, recognizing that his "voice in the wilderness" was
> not being as
> > appreciated
> > as it should have been.   No one has stepped in to take
> over the work
> Ralph was
> > doing.  If someone has stepped in, they are not making
> themselves or Ada
> visible.
> >
> > Richard Riehle
> >
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2