sampson@cod.NOSC.MIL (Charles H. Sampson) (12/21/90)
In article <9012191446.AA10320@logdis1.wr.aflc.af.mil> kmccook@LOGDIS1.WR.AFLC.AF.MIL (GS-09 Ken McCook;SCDD) writes: > > ... for information systems >"Ada Only" is going to cause an incredible drop in productivity. The Army's STANFINS project would appear to be a counterexample to this. It's a good-sized MIS project and the official line, from both the contractor and Army personnel, is that it's a roaring success. I consider their very high productivity claims to be somewhat suspect, but even if they are toned down substantially, they're still impressive. There's an interesting sidelight to STANFINS. The original was a COBOL system, of course, and the COBOL programmers had to be retrained to Ada. Ralph Crafts tells the story that when the programmers were asked to return to COBOL when STANFINS was finished, they not only refused, but they threat- ened to quit if they were forced. Charlie
defaria@hpclapd.HP.COM (Andy DeFaria) (12/22/90)
>/ hpclapd:comp.lang.ada / kmccook@LOGDIS1.WR.AFLC.AF.MIL (GS-09 Ken McCook;SCDD) / 5:16 am Dec 18, 1990 / >I am an Ada proponent. I recognized and agreed with all the benefits >when I was first introduced to the lady, however, as I learned more >I found that I and others like me all over the gov't didn't have the >skills to write info systems from scratch. Not intended as a flame but who had the skills to write the systems from scratch in the first place? I understand you to really mean that to you, and the others, Ada seems too difficult to learn and use to produce info systems from scratch. Yeah there are some new constructs and concepts but I'm sure that if you take someone off the street with a little exposure to programing (only one college FORTRAN class) and give them a little training in COBOL, tell them that there job is to now create a large info system from scratch using COBOL, that his attitude would be the same as yours "I can't do that!". Give it some time. Learn the language better. It's not really that difficult (but it can be if you want it to). >I agree with Jean Ichbiah's statement that the lack of an acceptable >interface between Ada and SQL is the greatest impediment to the further >spread of Ada. We've got a Ada binding to SQL.
waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu (01/03/91)
In article <2602@cod.NOSC.MIL>, sampson@cod.NOSC.MIL (Charles H. Sampson) writes: > In article <9012191446.AA10320@logdis1.wr.aflc.af.mil> kmccook@LOGDIS1.WR.AFLC.AF.MIL (GS-09 Ken McCook;SCDD) writes: >> >> ... for information systems >>"Ada Only" is going to cause an incredible drop in productivity. Well, there IS a price to be paid and, as a previous poster noted, program managers may neglect to account for it. But a mandate to use Ada is the only way the government can produce a market large enough for all of the various productivity tools to be produced. The more serious problems for the government are to ensure that: 1. The language is adequate for the missions. 2. STANDARDS are produced for bindings such as to SQL and the X Window System. 3. The runtime model stays current with advanced operating system concepts. > > The Army's STANFINS project would appear to be a counterexample to > this. It's a good-sized MIS project and the official line, from both the > contractor and Army personnel, is that it's a roaring success. I consider > their very high productivity claims to be somewhat suspect, but even if > they are toned down substantially, they're still impressive. > > There's an interesting sidelight to STANFINS. The original was a COBOL > system, of course, and the COBOL programmers had to be retrained to Ada. > Ralph Crafts tells the story that when the programmers were asked to return > to COBOL when STANFINS was finished, they not only refused, but they threat- > ened to quit if they were forced. Not surprising, right? Which leads to a further point: part of making sure the language is adequate is making sure that it continues to embody advanced language concepts. This will generally make it more attractive to learn (and to teach) and more difficult to give up once it has been learned. > > Charlie c.f.waltrip <waltrip@capsrv.jhuapl.edu> Opinions expressed are my own.