Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?
in [ADA]
|
Prev: Symbolic tracebacks on Debian (Was: About static libraries and Debian policy)
Next: Gnat cross compiler
From: Jeffrey R. Carter on 23 May 2010 16:32 Bruno Le Hyaric wrote: > > One question, why did Lockheed Martin choose C++ for avionics software > on the JSF aircraft project? Money. Most US Defense project contracts are set up so the contractor makes more money the more the project costs. A poor but "popular" language choice, lots of coders, and no SW engineers is one way to drive the cost up and make more money. Defense contractors have maximizing the profit down to a fine art. -- Jeff Carter "[I]f we should ever separate, my little plum, I want to give you one little bit of fatherly advice. ... Never give a sucker an even break." Poppy 97
From: Duke Normandin on 23 May 2010 16:59 On 2010-05-23, Jeffrey R. Carter <spam.jrcarter.not(a)spam.acm.org> wrote: > Bruno Le Hyaric wrote: >> >> One question, why did Lockheed Martin choose C++ for avionics software >> on the JSF aircraft project? > > Money. > > Most US Defense project contracts are set up so the contractor makes more money > the more the project costs. A poor but "popular" language choice, lots of > coders, and no SW engineers is one way to drive the cost up and make more money. > Defense contractors have maximizing the profit down to a fine art. > That's outright scary when you ponder all the implications. So much for using the "right tool, for a particular task". Greed, greed, and more greed is what is putting us at at risk in this embedded computer age. Toilet-flushing software may not matter much, but the various automated systems used in a modern transportation should be above greed's narsty reach - but apparently not. -- Duke *** Tolerance becomes a crime, when applied to evil [Thomas Mann] ***
From: Martin on 24 May 2010 03:55 On May 23, 7:32 pm, "(see below)" <yaldni...(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > On 23/05/2010 14:26, in article 22aKn.4575$Z6.3399(a)edtnps82, "Duke > > Normandin" <dukeofp...(a)ml1.net> wrote: > > On 2010-05-23, Yannick Duchêne <yannick_duch...(a)yahoo.fr> wrote: > >> Le Fri, 21 May 2010 00:58:26 +0200, Duke Normandin <dukeofp...(a)ml1.net> a > >> écrit: > >>> Ada continues to attract me; but so does Miranda ( and Giselle and Sophie > >>> ...) ;) > >> These are two very different paths. Miranda would be more close to what > >> are ?domain specific languages?... well, not exactly, but close. > > > Domain-specific? How so? Because it's a functional language, and therefore > > only good for ..... > > Not much at all. > > -- > Bill Findlay > <surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk Hi Bill, Why do you say that?... One of my favourite static analysis tools is written in ML...it's definitely useful! -- Martin
From: Stephen Leake on 24 May 2010 05:00 Duke Normandin <dukeofperl(a)ml1.net> writes: > On 2010-05-23, Jeffrey R. Carter <spam.jrcarter.not(a)spam.acm.org> wrote: >> Bruno Le Hyaric wrote: >>> >>> One question, why did Lockheed Martin choose C++ for avionics software >>> on the JSF aircraft project? >> >> Money. >> >> Most US Defense project contracts are set up so the contractor makes more money >> the more the project costs. A poor but "popular" language choice, lots of >> coders, and no SW engineers is one way to drive the cost up and make more money. >> Defense contractors have maximizing the profit down to a fine art. >> > > That's outright scary when you ponder all the implications. So much for > using the "right tool, for a particular task". Greed, greed, and more greed > is what is putting us at at risk in this embedded computer age. It's not the contractor's fault; it's the DOD's fault. If they wrote the contract so that the contractor made more money by using the right tools and writing good software, that's what would happen. It's the contractor's job to make as much money as possible; it's the client's job to set the terms of the contract. -- -- Stephe
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov on 24 May 2010 05:31
On Mon, 24 May 2010 05:00:58 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote: > Duke Normandin <dukeofperl(a)ml1.net> writes: > >> On 2010-05-23, Jeffrey R. Carter <spam.jrcarter.not(a)spam.acm.org> wrote: >>> Bruno Le Hyaric wrote: >>>> >>>> One question, why did Lockheed Martin choose C++ for avionics software >>>> on the JSF aircraft project? >>> >>> Money. >>> >>> Most US Defense project contracts are set up so the contractor makes more money >>> the more the project costs. A poor but "popular" language choice, lots of >>> coders, and no SW engineers is one way to drive the cost up and make more money. >>> Defense contractors have maximizing the profit down to a fine art. >> >> That's outright scary when you ponder all the implications. So much for >> using the "right tool, for a particular task". Greed, greed, and more greed >> is what is putting us at at risk in this embedded computer age. > > It's not the contractor's fault; it's the DOD's fault. If they wrote the > contract so that the contractor made more money by using the right tools > and writing good software, that's what would happen. > > It's the contractor's job to make as much money as possible; it's the > client's job to set the terms of the contract. Nice theory, not working in practice. Imagine your baker trying making as much money as possible and you setting terms on the bread's ingredients. It is the fault of the CS unable to deliver a sound background for software engineering. Which is more shamanism than engineering. This in turn makes it impossible to impose *reasonable* regulations on what software is and how it is to be engineered. (Unreasonable regulations are plenty, of course) Meaningful regulations exist, for example, for bakers, so when you buy bread it is bread. When you buy software it can be anything. Because nobody knows for sure how to do it "right". It is "our" word against the word of c-java-dot-net-UML camp. The latter is far more vocal. So what do you expect DoD to do? -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de |