I've been saddenned to meet so called Ada Experts that supposedly have
been in Ada for over 10 years who still dont understand basic concepts
of generics, access types, or the tasking model. And guys who have
plodded along at the surface layer for 10 years without reading a
I've met guys whove done Ada for 2 months who have really impressed me.
But this goes for any technology.
One must ask the right questions of these guys.
The fact that this happens so often pisses me off completely too.
--- "Wisniewski, Joseph (UNKNOWN)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I was going to hold off on this aspect but, John has hit right on the
> with a prior post somewhat more indirectly.
> I would like someone to define what is meant by "lack of Ada
> OK, I will :--)
> Clients and shops have become so darn lazy when it comes to "talent
> they have decided that "keyword matching" defines quality. Now, if I
> hiring an ASIC
> h/w design engineer, I probably want someone who has done this
> before. But
> Sorry, but this is a MAJOR pet peeve with me right now. ANYONE who
> has coded
> Ada, even for 6 months can come in, and get great money. Why is it,
> that a
> language match has come to define "quality". Ada vs. whatever
> language is
> really not the issue
> here. The same goes for C++ or even Java. I will take a GOOD
> language" engineer
> who has been experienced in "whatever other" language. How far do I
> go with
> this? Well,
> the assessment is qualitative but, if I see someone who is a good
> communicator, is
> AWARE of implications of design decisions, looks for and sees
> problems and
> done a stitch of Ada, I'll take him over an "average engineer" who
> most of the
> Ada syntax and has coded Ada for 5 years; EVERY TIME.
> This really gets my goat, because I see engineers every day who are
> hour who can't design their way out of a paper bag, because they
> wrote an
> utility once. Again, keyword matching has replaced real interviewing
> people and organizations are lazy, and in some cases flat out stupid.
> If there are any managers out there, frankly, it is time to take back
> from HR departments that have foisted this method of "keyword resume
> mining" on us all
> and those managers within your organizations that hire this way. And
> if you
> do it, then shame on
> you. Why is it that you see some of your best people leave your
> organizations? This is
> one big reason that I have seen. As much as we all know that salary
> comparisons are a
> way to put you in an early grave, this issue of keyword
> assessment of
> personnel that has brought crappy engineers in at undeserving rates
> quality people and they will only put up with it for so long.
> So to answer my question, the only real long-term way to have enough
> is to hire "good engineers" and then show them the way. If they are a
> engineer, they
> will see the benefits and be some of your best advocates.
> > ----------
> > From:
> > [log in to unmask][SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Reply To: [log in to unmask]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 6:39 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Ada in the Press
> > This seems to be a case of everyone agreeing that Ada is by far the
> > choice for high reliability or embedded systems, yet companies
> > included) have all but abandoned Ada. I'm starting off on a new
> > that
> > is expected to be in service for at least 10 years, but I have been
> > forbidden from using Ada for the main reason that the tools are
> > expensive and there is an 'apparent' lack of Ada engineers. There
> > little
> > to no input from the DoD customer as to anything other than making
> > use
> > of COTS and minimizing the costs. But in this era of a military
> that is no
> > longer 100% MICAP, reliability doesn't seem to be as critical. A
> > that scares the hell out of me.
> > I have to choose my battles carefully, but I do point out problems
> > Teaching Moments, as they're known through the engineering
> > that
> > would've been prevented using Ada. The only tactic that I may be
> able to
> > use
> > to go to Ada in the future is to show what a mess it was to do in
> > and
> > be able to present concrete examples of how Ada would have made it
> > efficient and more reliable.
> > One problem that I fight continually is the cost of tools. Yes, I
> > full
> > well they will pay for themselves in increased productivity but the
> > of
> > hard metrics to prove this to management is a problem. And of
> > company
> > and customer management, here and everywhere, consists of many
> people who
> > haven't done any design in years if not decades. They aren't
> stupid, just
> > isolated from important sets of information. Many of the engineers
> I work
> > with agree that Ada is superior, yet the orders flow down from the
> > offices that "thou shalt not."
> > Corporate America (most of it at any rate) is more set on the
> bottom line
> > (only today's of course) and the stock price than in doing a good
> job. I
> > don't know how to change that. The really ironic part of it is the
> > toward VHDL on the hardware side. It makes use of a good number of
> > concepts.
> > I hope that Ada will prevail in the long term, but I think the
> short term
> > will be stressful for all of us who understand its great strengths
> > benefits.
> > John T Apa
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tom Timberlake [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 2:31 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Ada in the Press
> > >
> > > Ada gets a bit of good press in the 11/8/99 issue of Gov't
> > News,
> > > in an article on Software Development Tools pg 45.
> > >
> > > "Ada, the required language for most DOD projects from 1991
> > 1993,
> > > is still strongly recommended for embedded systems and other
> > work.
> > > The Information Technology Standards Guidance V3.1, which is
> still in
> > > effect, deprecates the use of C."
> > > ...
> > > "The same document recommends against C++, stating: 'because the
> > mechanics
> > > of the C language are embedded in C++, it is susceptible to many
> of the
> > > above noted difficultiew with C ... Use of C++ for the
> development of
> > > critical systems applications is not recommended.' "
> > >
> > > The article also lists 9 Ada compiler vendors.
> > >
> > > ===============
> > > Tom Timberlake
> > > The Boeing Company
=== message truncated ===
DSCM Homepage : http://consultancy.gotoinfo.ch/dscm/
PGP Public Key Via http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1082C659
Please Encrypt All Private Matter
Get PGP from http://web.mit.edu/network/pgp.html
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com