Re: verdix kisses off Ada

[pacbell.com!att-out!cbnewsl!ajn@decwrl.dec.com (arthur.j.northrup)]

In article <9573@verdix.verdix.com>, sfz@verdix.com (Stephen Zeigler) writes:
> Verdix Corporation has been described as "kissing off Ada."  As Vice
> President of Compiler Products for Verdix, I would like to correct
> the record.  The following posting was made to comp.lang.ada:
> 
> > >From the May 6, 1993 issue of Washington Technology, page 3:
> > 
> >     Verdix Corporation, a leading supplier of software engineering
> >     products using the Ada programming language, is attempting to
> >     sell its security products division.  The firm is looking to
> >     refocus resources on its core software programming business,
> >     particularly efforts in products for the C++ computer language,
> >     which has eclipsed use of Ada outside of the Pentagon.
> > 
> > 
> >     What will it take for the DoD to see the light and drop the Mandate?
> > For all Ada compiler companies to fail and/or refocus on C++? For all Ada
> > components vendors to fail and/or switch over to C++?  For all of the
> > services to pay lip service to the Mandate? For DoD software developments
> > costs to go through the roof?   WHAT??????
> > 
> > Greg Aharonian
> > -- 
> > **************************************************************************
> > Greg Aharonian
> >  Source Translation & Optimiztion
> >  P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
> 
> The above quoted article seems to have left a misimpression, at least
> with Mr. Aharonian.  Verdix continues to invest
> enthusiastically in its Ada tool technology, which supplies a complete set
> of development tools to a wide range of customers, for most popular hosts
> and targets.  Verdix Ada technology is also supplied by OEMs such as Sun
> Microsystems and Silicon Graphics.
> 
> Verdix does internal development in C, C++ and Ada, but generally has found
> that Ada is the most cost effective language for new development.  We follow
> similar guidelines to the DoD: if an internal module is to be more than
> 30% recoded we will use Ada.  We have records of all changes ever made in the
> development of Verdix products; those records show us that for the lifecycle
> Ada seems to be about 2x or better for cost effectiveness than C.  C++ number
s
> are too early to show meaningful results.  In general we expect C++ to be bes
t
> for integrating known "objects" when writing relatively concise new programs,
> while Ada and later Ada9x are better for realtime, for precise and for
> extensively new programs.
> 
[ Many interesting lines deleted]

I question whether posts such as this post from Mr. Aharonian are productive.
It seems that Ada vendors MUST reply in order to set the record straight but
what if there is no reason to straighten the record in the first place?  The
little bit of the article provided doesn't indicate that Verdix is abandoning
Ada.  So long as they don't compromise their Ada activities, I believe that it
is in the best interest of Verdix and other Ada related companies to become
multifaceted less they be out of business if the Ada market does evaporate.

Having Ada vendors acutely aware of the latest rage in software languges has
got to help as Ada undergoes its redefinitions (e.g., Ada-9x).


============================================================================
=  Art Northrup        |       THIS PAGE       | Of course these are my    =
=  CAP Gemini America  |     INTENTIONALLY     | opinions --- who else     =
=  at AT&T Bell Labs   |       LEFT BLANK      | would want them?          =
============================================================================