TRI-Ada '94 Topics

TRI-Ada '94 Topics

[Richard Dye]

We are in the early process of putting together the program for
TRI-Ada '94.  The theme of the conference is "Architecting Systems for
the 90's and Beyond."

I would like to start a dialogue about what topics will be "hot
topics" in November 1994 - not what is hot right now, but what will be
hot in 15 months.

Suggestions: telecommunications, dealing with large complex systems,
re-engineering/re-hosting, methodologies, software development
environments, Ada 9X, where do you draw the line between hardware and
software, managing change, Ada education, and human factors.  These
topics come from the call for papers.  What else should we try to get
on the program?

Who would you like to hear from as a keynoter?

Please reply to this news group or directly to me:

Dick Dye
TRI-Ada '94 Program Chair
dyer@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu
+1-719-590-5224
Fax: +1-719-590-5198

TRI-Ada '94 topics

[Bob Crispen]

Dick Dye asks about hot topics that ought to be considered for
TRI-Ada '94.

One topic which isn't hot, but which I think should be, is the issue of
architecture.  I heard an amusing story this morning about a person
(who shall be nameless) who went to visit three groups of people in
a company (also nameless) to talk about software/system architectures
and what such things as standard software templates, standard software
parts lists, and standard communications methods between parts can mean
for reuse and cost savings.

The common thread from each of the folks he talked to was that (a) they
didn't understand what software/system architecture was, (b) they didn't
buy the concept that it was important or even relevant, and (c) they had
a "way of doing things" (English translation: unexamined, unimprovable
process) that they were familiar and confortable with and had no interest
in changing.

The Air Force ASD/SEI Structural Model initiative that is going to
require structural models to be specified for new proposals seem to be
saying that they've run into people like that, too!  One of the reasons
I didn't name the company involved is that it might well be Everycompany.
I'm guessing we wouldn't have to search too hard, nor would you, to find
the same thing.

Of course, ASD's solution is a little Procrustean.  Nevertheless,
forcing you to think about things you don't want to think about sounds
on its face like it might be good for you.

The only problem I see with Structural Modeling is that it doesn't go
far enough.  The Structural Model as I (mis?)understand it requires a
methodology (art) but not a defined, repeatable process (cookbook).
In fairness, I understand that the SEI are developing a family of
defined processes to fit into Structural Modeling.

But I'm not trying to say whether or not Structural Modeling is mature.
I *am* trying to say that A METHODOLOGY IS NOT A PROCESS!  In particular,
the links between a methodology and an architecture are arbitrary, or at
any rate loose, while the links between a process and an architecture
are fundamental and deep.

This notion explains all sorts of things:  ADARTS can have its
architecture step late in the game because it's driven by a methodology.
The people who are complaining about that and tailoring ADARTS to put
the architecture earlier have a process in mind.  And why are people
having such problems using SEEs to gain productivity?  Because the
SEEs I've seen incorporate a methodology (or two) but not a process.

We've had a lot of debates about goodness of methodologies (OOD is a Good
Thing, Functional Decomposition is a Bad Thing, etc.).  Because we're
focusing on methodologies instead of processes and architectures on
which the processes are based, I'm guessing that we're not doing a very
good job of defining standards of goodness for architectures.  And I'm
guessing with a greater feeling of certainty that we're not doing much
of a job of evaluating the architectures that eventuate from our
methodologies (or that we've "always used") against a defined set of
criteria.

It just happens, by an amazing coincidence ;-), that I'm the co-author
of a paper that's being presented elsewhere that at least opens some of
these boxes.  And it seems to me that there's plenty more to be said
on this subject.

Well, I suppose I wouldn't be much good if I didn't think that what
I'd been working on was fairly important.  What do folks think about
the architectural issue?  Can someone define it a little better than
I've done here?  Am I the only one who cares about it?
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Bob Crispen                   |   Who will babysit the babysitters?  |
| crispen@foxy.boeing.com       +--------------------------------------+
| (205) 461-3296                |Opinions expressed here are mine alone|
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

Re: TRI-Ada '94 topics

[Tucker Taft]

In article <9308261918.AA10006@eight-ball.boeing.com> 
  crispen@eight-ball.boeing.com (Bob Crispen) writes:

>Dick Dye asks about hot topics that ought to be considered for
>TRI-Ada '94.
>
>One topic which isn't hot, but which I think should be, is the issue of
>architecture.  

[Other good stuff deleted]

A related topic, that is hot in the OO world, is the concept
of "reusable frameworks."  As is true in most engineering disciplines, 
people originally tried to reuse very small components, and at some point 
discovered that the relationships between components are often
at least as important as the components themselves.  A reusable
framework is essentially a bunch of extensible types/classes/packages that
are interrelated, but intentionally incomplete.  

To "reuse" a reusable framework, one extends the various 
types/classes/packages in application-specific way, and
can quickly get up a nearly fully functional application.

If you contrast this with a reusable library of classes/packages,
the difference is that a reusable framework is "preintegrated."
A reusable library of classes/packages is just that, a "library,"
where you thumb through the catalog and look for interesting
things, but there is no particular integration between the
elements of the library, so the possibilites for picking and choosing 
(and misusing) are nearly infinite, and the job of building an 
application from pieces in the library may be actually harder than 
reinventing the components as needed.

Of course a really well indexed catalog can help minimize this
problem.  Nevertheless, one can clearly be more productive
reusing a preintegrated reusable framework, if it is sufficiently
flexible and extensible.

One classic example of a preintegrated reusable framework is
the X Window System with the Xtk (or other) widget toolkit.
Unfortunately, extending Xtk in C is pretty painful, though
there are rumors that the widgets of X11R6 will be based on C++ 
(and if all goes as planned, there will be an Ada-9X-based Xtk widget 
set too).

Reusable frameworks also makes sense for persistent object management,
communications, interpretive command processing (e.g. TCL), accounting,
spreadsheet kinds of applications, etc.

> . . .
>Well, I suppose I wouldn't be much good if I didn't think that what
>I'd been working on was fairly important.  What do folks think about
>the architectural issue?  Can someone define it a little better than
>I've done here?  Am I the only one who cares about it?

I agree that many people have trouble understanding exactly
what is a "software architecture."  However, when they see
a preintegrated reusable framework, there is little doubt 
what it is.  Seeing an existing framework also seems to give 
people ideas about how they could think of building 
their own sets of applications by separating the issues into 
the job of designing and building the framework, versus the 
job of extending and populating the framework with more specific components.

>| Bob Crispen                   |   Who will babysit the babysitters?  |
>| crispen@foxy.boeing.com       +--------------------------------------+

S. Tucker Taft    stt@inmet.com
Intermetrics, Inc.
Cambridge, MA  02138

Re: TRI-Ada '94 topics

[cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!lph]

In article <CCFDKz.1JA@inmet.camb.inmet.com>, stt@spock.camb.inmet.com
(Tucker Taft) writes:
|> In article <9308261918.AA10006@eight-ball.boeing.com> 
|>   crispen@eight-ball.boeing.com (Bob Crispen) writes:
|> 
|> >Dick Dye asks about hot topics that ought to be considered for
|> >TRI-Ada '94.
|> >
|> >One topic which isn't hot, but which I think should be, is the issue of
|> >architecture.  
|> 
|> [Other good stuff deleted]
|> 
|> A related topic, that is hot in the OO world, is the concept
|> of "reusable frameworks."  As is true in most engineering disciplines, 
|> people originally tried to reuse very small components, and at some point 
|> discovered that the relationships between components are often
|> at least as important as the components themselves.  A reusable
|> framework is essentially a bunch of extensible types/classes/packages that
|> are interrelated, but intentionally incomplete.  
|> 
|> To "reuse" a reusable framework, one extends the various 
|> types/classes/packages in application-specific way, and
|> can quickly get up a nearly fully functional application.
|> 
|> [contrasts with "a reusable library of classes/packages" (and it's
|> apparent he means a library of reusable classes/packages ;')
|> 
|> I agree that many people have trouble understanding exactly
|> what is a "software architecture."  However, when they see
|> a preintegrated reusable framework, there is little doubt 
|> what it is.  Seeing an existing framework also seems to give 
|> people ideas about how they could think of building 
|> their own sets of applications by separating the issues into 
|> the job of designing and building the framework, versus the 
|> job of extending and populating the framework with more specific components.

A technical report entitled "Structural Modeling: An Application Framework and
Development Process for Flight Simulators" (CMU/SEI-93-TR-14) is in the final
stages of approval and will soon be made available through the SEI's normal
distribution channels (e.g., DTIC).

I would point out that application frameworks seem to vary in the degree to
which composition is fixed and the degree of completeness of parts.  Some
address part integration and interoperability in the context of fixed
compositions of parts, making such frameworks close to a commonly embraced
notion of software architecture.  Others address these issues for variable
compositions of instances of part types (abstract or fully deferred classes),
which requires that developers subsequently partition the application into
fixed compositions of instances of the part types and then complete these
instances.  The structural models we have developed for air vehicle
simulations have both fixed and variable part compositions and structural
elements (part types) that vary in degree of completeness.

[please forgive the preceeding Sentences From Hell]

These differences in the generality of application frameworks naturally
affect process.  If partitioning must be performed first, then defining the
application framework, as relationships among particular parts, comes later.
If the application framework is developed first, as relationships among kinds
of parts, then partitioning comes later.  What should be suspect is any
approach that defers defining the relationships among the application's parts
until after they are realized as software... or never ;').







--
Larry Howard
Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
lph@sei.cmu.edu, (412) 268-6397   NeXTmail: vitruvius!lph@eclipse.pgh.pa.us

Re: TRI-Ada '94 Topics

[agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!pipex!zaphod.crihan.fr!vishnu.jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr]

In article <1993Aug20.202256.5098@sei.cmu.edu>, dyer@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (Richard 
Dye) writes:
: 
: Who would you like to hear from as a keynoter?

Tucker Taft speaking about Ada 9X (which will then be frozen),
especially design alternatives and trade-offs.

: 
: Please reply to this news group or directly to me:
: 
: Dick Dye
: TRI-Ada '94 Program Chair
: dyer@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu
: +1-719-590-5224
: Fax: +1-719-590-5198


Alfred Strohmeier

Re: TRI-Ada '94 Topics

[John Cobarruvias]

In article <1993Sep1.160948@di.epfl.ch> Alfred.Strohmeier@di.epfl.ch
(Alfred Strohmeier) writes:
>In article <1993Aug20.202256.5098@sei.cmu.edu>, dyer@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu
(Richard Dye) writes:
>: 
>: Who would you like to hear from as a keynoter?

Mr. Ada himself, Greg. :-)

>
>Tucker Taft speaking about Ada 9X (which will then be frozen),
>especially design alternatives and trade-offs.
>
>: 
>: Please reply to this news group or directly to me:
>: 
>: Dick Dye
>: TRI-Ada '94 Program Chair
>: dyer@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu
>: +1-719-590-5224
>: Fax: +1-719-590-5198
>
>
>Alfred Strohmeier
>




*************************************************************
John R. Cobarruvias, Texas A&M Class of '78, 
NASA Johnson Space Center Houston Tx.
(713)483-9357

"Your pain will be legendary" (Hellraiser I)
"And to think..................I hesitated" (Hellraiser II)
"These pins are killing me!" (Pinhead in Hellraiser IV)
*************************************************************

Re: TRI-Ada '94 Topics

[Gregory Aharonian]

In article <1993Sep1.160948@di.epfl.ch> Alfred.Strohmeier@di.epfl.ch
(Alfred Strohmeier) writes:
>>In article <1993Aug20.202256.5098@sei.cmu.edu>, dyer@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu
>(Richard Dye) writes:
>>: 
>>: Who would you like to hear from as a keynoter?
>
>Mr. Ada himself, Greg. :-)
>
>>
>>Tucker Taft speaking about Ada 9X (which will then be frozen),
>>especially design alternatives and trade-offs.
>

Tucker Taft speaking about how Intermetrics is going to take its
successful strategy for marketing C products and use it to market
Ada9X.
-- 
**************************************************************************
 Greg Aharonian                                      srctran@world.std.com
 Source Translation & Optimization                            617-489-3727
 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

Re: TRI-Ada '94 Topics

[Michael Feldman]

In article <SRCTRAN.93Sep1235753@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory 
Aharonian) writes:
>
>In article <1993Sep1.160948@di.epfl.ch> Alfred.Strohmeier@di.epfl.ch
>(Alfred Strohmeier) writes:
>>>In article <1993Aug20.202256.5098@sei.cmu.edu>, dyer@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu
>>(Richard Dye) writes:
>>>: 
>>>: Who would you like to hear from as a keynoter?
>>
>>Mr. Ada himself, Greg. :-)
>>
>>>
>>>Tucker Taft speaking about Ada 9X (which will then be frozen),
>>>especially design alternatives and trade-offs.
>>
>
>Tucker Taft speaking about how Intermetrics is going to take its
>successful strategy for marketing C products and use it to market
>Ada9X.
Yes! Yes! Yes!

Mike Feldman
>**************************************************************************
> Greg Aharonian                                      srctran@world.std.com
> Source Translation & Optimization                            617-489-3727
> P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

Re: TRI-Ada '94 Topics

[agate!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!source.asset.com!cernosek]

In article <1993Aug20.202256.5098@sei.cmu.edu> dyer@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (Richard D
ye) writes:
>We are in the early process of putting together the program for
>TRI-Ada '94.  The theme of the conference is "Architecting Systems for
>the 90's and Beyond."
>
>I would like to start a dialogue about what topics will be "hot
>topics" in November 1994 - not what is hot right now, but what will be
>hot in 15 months.

I would like to see a session dedicated to "Object-Oriented Concurrent
Programming with Ada 9X."  The recent Communications of the ACM (Sept
'93) featured eight articlces on the subject; however, there was little
mention of Ada.  The Ada community should begin making news in this
arena, which I believe will most certainly be a "hot topic" -- in 1994
and beyond.

>Who would you like to hear from as a keynoter?

The keynoter should be someone that represents an organization that has
(or will be) adopting Ada technology for reasons others than they had to
by mandate.  I remember a SIGAda conference in Seattle back in, I think,
1987, where Boeing made a presentation on how they were considering Ada
for what they were then calling the "7J7" commercial aircraft program.
The reasons why such an organization chooses Ada are often most
enlightening.  (By the way, the '7' in 7J7 also became a '7,' and the
software for Boeing's "Tripple-7" systems is being written in Ada.)

>
>Dick Dye
>TRI-Ada '94 Program Chair
>dyer@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu
>+1-719-590-5224
>Fax: +1-719-590-5198


-- 
Gary J. Cernosek
Fastrak Training Inc.
Houston Office: (713) 280-4768
E-mail: cernosek@source.asset.com

Re: TRI-Ada '94 Topics

[Robert Dewar]

Mike Feldman says yes! yes! yes! to the suggestion of Tucker talking about
Intermetrics marketing efforts for C.

I guess this is another instance of desparately wanting there to be a simple
formula hiding around the corner, and if only we knew the secret formula (i.e.
the one that Tuck will reveal in this amazing keynote address), then all will
be well, since we can just adopt that marketing approach and Ada will seel
like hotcakes.

All this reminds me why I mistrust companies whose marketing strategies are'
run by technical people!

Of course it's too bad that Mike isn't right in his fantasy, it would be
so nice!

(Gee, I guess the only reason IBM failed with PL/1 was that they didn't ask
Intermetrics how to market it :-)

Re: TRI-Ada '94 Topics

[Robert Dewar]

The suggestion of a talk from an organization using Ada in a non-mandated
setting seems a good one to me. An obvious candidate is Silicon Graphics.
Not only are they using Ada for all their virtual reality stuff, but also
they strongly claim that they could not have succeeded in this task using
C++ and it would be interesting to here why.

Re: TRI-Ada '94 Topics

[Gene Ouye]

Robert Dewar (dewar@cs.nyu.edu) wrote:
: The suggestion of a talk from an organization using Ada in a non-mandated
: setting seems a good one to me. An obvious candidate is Silicon Graphics.
: Not only are they using Ada for all their virtual reality stuff, but also
: they strongly claim that they could not have succeeded in this task using
: C++ and it would be interesting to here why.

I second this.  I would love to hear objective, business-case discussions
on why an organization chose Ada over C++ without any "just pick Ada cuz
C++ sucks and anyone who uses it must be a hack that only uses unsafe and
intentionally obscure constructs" diatribe.

--
Gene Ouye (geneo@rational.com)   Rational, Bethesda, MD
(301) 897-4014

Re: TRI-Ada '94 Topics

[Gene Ouye]

I (geneo@Rational.COM) wrote:

: I second this.  I would love to hear objective, business-case discussions
: on why an organization chose Ada over C++ without any "just pick Ada cuz
: C++ sucks and anyone who uses it must be a hack that only uses unsafe and
: intentionally obscure constructs" diatribe.

Following up my own post, I would also like to hear the converse of the
above, ie, _objective_ (no pun intended ;-), business-case discussions on
why an organization chose C++ over Ada, (again, without any anti-Ada
diatribe).

(PLEASE, NO FLAME-WARS NOW!!!)

--
Gene Ouye (geneo@rational.com)   Rational, Bethesda, MD
(301) 897-4014

Re: TRI-Ada '94 Topics

[agate!library.ucla.edu!news.mic.ucla.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.s]

In article <2683ob$100@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wr
ites:

>I guess this is another instance of desparately wanting there to be a simple
>formula hiding around the corner, and if only we knew the secret formula (i.e.
>the one that Tuck will reveal in this amazing keynote address), then all will
>be well, since we can just adopt that marketing approach and Ada will seel
>like hotcakes.

But, Robert, there surely is a secret formula.  Or are we to suppose there
was an immense, unsatisfied demand for hula hoops, pet rocks, and repulsive
purple dinosaurs?  (Not to mention object-oriented programming.)  Commodities
don;t find markets; they create them.  (I think this is called Say's Law, by
the way.)

However, if we really want Ada to sell like hot cakes, maybe we should
ask Sega to tell us how they marketed Sonic the Hedgehog?

Re: TRI-Ada '94 Topics

[Robert Dewar]

Now there's some really impressive technology (Sonic the Hedghog)

Re: TRI-Ada '94 Topics

[Mike Berman]

dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>The suggestion of a talk from an organization using Ada in a non-mandated
>setting seems a good one to me. An obvious candidate is Silicon Graphics.
>Not only are they using Ada for all their virtual reality stuff, but also
>they strongly claim that they could not have succeeded in this task using
>C++ and it would be interesting to here why.

I couldn't agree more on the topic or the speaker, but why wait until
'94? Dave already gave this talk at WADAS '93, and this talk would be better
off if given at a conference with more general appeal.

I know that Ada Paintball is being demoed at OOPSLA. What we need for
Tri-Ada '94, or, better yet, OOPSLA, Object Expo, etc., etc., is more
proof positive along the same lines as what SGI has already done.



-- 
Mike Berman
University of Maryland, Baltimore County     Fastrak Training, Inc.
berman@umbc.edu                              (301)924-0050
       The views represented in the above post are my own.

Re: TRI-Ada '94 Topics

[Michael Feldman]

In article <2683ob$100@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wr
ites:
>Mike Feldman says yes! yes! yes! to the suggestion of Tucker talking about
>Intermetrics marketing efforts for C.
>
>I guess this is another instance of desparately wanting there to be a simple
>formula hiding around the corner, and if only we knew the secret formula (i.e.
>the one that Tuck will reveal in this amazing keynote address), then all will
>be well, since we can just adopt that marketing approach and Ada will seel
>like hotcakes.
>
>All this reminds me why I mistrust companies whose marketing strategies are'
>run by technical people!
>
>Of course it's too bad that Mike isn't right in his fantasy, it would be
>so nice!
>
>(Gee, I guess the only reason IBM failed with PL/1 was that they didn't ask
>Intermetrics how to market it :-)
>
Sigh...Robert, Greg posted something sarcastic. He was implying that
Intermetrics invests more in marketing its C stuff than its Ada stuff.
I answered in an equally sarcastic vein. By not quoting the original
parts of the note, Robert, just paraphrasing out of context, you do the
original posters a real disservice.

The net serves as a reasonable outlet for peoples' frustrations. Your
posts are almost always negative when, in fact, you could make some very
constructive contributions to the debate out here. We kid around a lot;
there's a lot of gallows humor. But there are constructive discussions,
too. I don't like being quoted so thoroughly out of context, especially
when the original was more in the nature of a sarcastic joke.

Tell us how _you_ would do it, Robert.

Mike Feldman

Re: TRI-Ada '94 Topics

[agate!spool.mu.edu!wupost!waikato!comp.vuw.ac.nz!navy.mil.nz!tui!jtown]

In article 10n@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu, dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>The suggestion of a talk from an organization using Ada in a non-mandated
>setting seems a good one to me. An obvious candidate is Silicon Graphics.
>Not only are they using Ada for all their virtual reality stuff, but also
>they strongly claim that they could not have succeeded in this task using
>C++ and it would be interesting to here why.
>


I agree. I won't be at TRI-Ada, but would be _very_ interested in this..


                               (^_^)


===============================================================================
John Townsend, Lieutenant, Royal New Zealand Navy.   :- jtown@fossa.navy.mil.nz
telephone: +64-9-4455-806                             facsimile: +64-9-4455-475
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The opinions expressed in this post are not necessarily those of my employer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: TRI-Ada '94 Topics

[Dave McAllister]

In article <26ocs7INN3gl@umbc4.umbc.edu>, berman@umbc.edu (Mike Berman) writes:
|> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
|> >The suggestion of a talk from an organization using Ada in a non-mandated
|> >setting seems a good one to me. An obvious candidate is Silicon Graphics.
|> >Not only are they using Ada for all their virtual reality stuff, but also
|> >they strongly claim that they could not have succeeded in this task using
|> >C++ and it would be interesting to here why.
|> 
|> I couldn't agree more on the topic or the speaker, but why wait until
|> '94? Dave already gave this talk at WADAS '93, and this talk would be better
|> off if given at a conference with more general appeal.
|> 
|> I know that Ada Paintball is being demoed at OOPSLA. What we need for
|> Tri-Ada '94, or, better yet, OOPSLA, Object Expo, etc., etc., is more
|> proof positive along the same lines as what SGI has already done.
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Mike Berman
|> University of Maryland, Baltimore County     Fastrak Training, Inc.
|> berman@umbc.edu                              (301)924-0050
|>        The views represented in the above post are my own.

SGI builds the tools to build the neat stuff.  What we do with Ada is break
the conventional boundaries... along with the hardware, OS, linker, graphics 
pipeline and the Ada marketing budget ($ZERO)) { Maybe I should start a Greg
here "Send me $100,000 and I'll market something.  I'll even promise to do it 
well} ;-)

Actually, you'll hear something along these lines from Way Ting, Vice President
of the Visual Magic Division at SGI in this years TRI/Ada keynote. (along with
more 'way' jokes than you can stand.... "Way to go Way.... we're still WaiTing!
)

dave McAllister

-- 
*SHINDO - the ART of the MIND*

*Fortune for the day*