From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: rkester@csc.com (Rush Kester) Subject: Re: C++ Standardization (was: Once again, Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation) Date: 1996/10/22 Message-ID: <54ij22$7ba@explorer.csc.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 191239349 references: <01bbb57f$7fb59020$72663389@billn.logicon.com> <325BC3B3.41C6@hso.link.com> <325BED6A.63F4@itg-sepg.logicon.com> <325D29A3.308@itg-sepg.logicon.com> <54es3s$2dv@lex.zippo.com> organization: Computer Sciences Corporation newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In a follow-up to Richard, nasser@apldbio.com wrote: R: In article , says... R: > And yet, David, we both know, and many readers of this forum know,that R: > many DoD projects are being programmed in C++. I just learned of a R: > critical missile system, orginally planned to be done in Ada, which has R: > been programmed in C++. R: > R: .... R: > We need to make the case that Ada is a better business decision, R: > not just a better language design. N: Why do we need to make this case? As a scientist/engineer, I feel the DoD needs to decide whether it believes it's own statement that Ada lower's a systems life-cycle costs. Having worked on a number of projects in a variety of languages, I believe Ada is cost effective. As a U.S. Taxpayer, it upsets me that DoD managers are wasting my tax dollars. N: If a manager does not want to use Ada, let them. N: If someone is not smart enough to see an advantage in using Ada, N: let someone smarter than them take advantage of this fact, and N: produce better software using Ada, which means they'll sell N: more software and make more money with less completion, since the N: end customer only cares about the quality of the product, not what N: language it was written in, let the free market and the free N: competition decide. (When I go buy a car, I only care that it is N: a good quality car, not HOW and what tools where used to build it). If the DoD market was for volume sales of the same software package, Nasser's argument that the free market would identify the "best" language would hold. However, unlike buying a car, the buyer in this case does not have an existing product to examine and evaluate. For the DoD market, in most cases, software is custom built to the buyer's specifications. Most contractors will happily use whatever programming language, tools, hardware, etc. the government specifies. The incentives to project managers, both contractor and government, is to minimize development costs and ignore life-cycle costs. However, the government must pay not only development costs, but the cost to maintain and enhance the system over its life time. N: If I want to open my own software company (as an example!) , and I N: believe Ada is the better choice language over C or C++, then I'll N: be very happy to see less people using Ada and more using C and C++, N: because this means I will have less competition for producing higher N: quality software, and if I believe that using C and C++ produces more N: problems in the software than when using Ada, then the more my N: competitions use C and C++, the better I'll be. N: N: Just IMHO offcourse. N: N: Nasser Where the customer doesn't have a preference for the language applications are developed it, the above strategy will lead "smart" companies to succeed. However, in the case of the DoD, the customer has a preferred language, whether it's stated explicitly in the project specifications or implied by the current trend. In these situations, it's contractors that use the customer's "preferred" language that will get business. Rush Kester Sr. Software Engineer W (301) 640-3632 (in person M-F: 9am-5pm EDST, voicemail anytime) Fax -4750 or -4940 -- Rush Kester W (301) 640-3632 (in person M-F: 9am-5pm EDST, voicemail any time) Fax -4750 or -4940