Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ginosko!usc!trwind!venice!baur From: baur@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Steven L. Baur) Newsgroups: comp.sw.components Subject: Re: Are "production" programming languages are dinosaurs? Message-ID: <30@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> Date: 3 Oct 89 10:23:26 GMT References: <929@scaup.cl.cam.ac.uk> Organization: TRW Systems Engineering & Development Division, Redondo Beach, CA Lines: 55 in article <929@scaup.cl.cam.ac.uk>, scc@cl.cam.ac.uk (Stephen Crawley) says: > Posted: Fri Sep 29 13:41:17 1989 > > Well how come ADA seems to be largely irrelevant outside of the defense > sector? It is not really. But current Ada compiler technology produces large slow code. Given mature languages like "C", there should not be much incentive currently, to use Ada. What is most interesting is that Ada is not particularly acceptible for D.O.D. applications either. (Some background first) I produced a Heterogeneous Interprocess Communications library for Ada that was used for the Army FAAD (Forward Area Air Defense) project (and might well be used on future contracts). FAAD is part of a five-part Army contract to computerize the entire battle- field. The MCS project (Maneuver Control System - part of the same system FAAD is to run in) was fielded first, and runs on a system with MC68010s, bubble memory, and a plasma display. It uses a specialized version of Ada developed by Ford Aerospace Corp. that has needed properties for implementing the system. The extensions to Ada that Ford wrote are incompatible with any Ada standard. I emphasize this point because DOD has published data about Ada-using contracts and has emphasized (among others MCS), and I know MCS does not use "true" Ada. (Other TRW Ada using projects depend on system dependent facilities of the local Ada, with portability being thrown out the door). > ... ADA 9x will be 10 - 15 years out of date. Agreed. But I don't have to like it. > ... > Sadly ADA 83 isn't anywhere nearing the end of its life ... even for > writing new software. It would be very optimistic to expect ADA 9x > software development environments to be available before 1995, which > puts ADA 83 only 1/2 way through its life. And even that is ignoring > the inertia inherent in the software development process. I can't see > many project managers leaping to ADA 9x half way through a large project. You may be wrong on that. We see the limitations of ADA83 too clearly. (I hope you're wrong on that -- I'm a TRW stockholder). > ... There are two remaining things: Ford Aerospace is rewriting X-Windows because it takes up too much core and is too slow (for the MCS project). The Heterogeneous IPC effort was an order of magnitude more difficult to implement in Ada than in "C". steve (baur@venice.sedd.trw.com)