←back to thread

The C++ standard for the F-35 Fighter Jet [video]

(www.youtube.com)
327 points AareyBaba | 7 comments | 07 Dec 25 18:07 UTC | HN request time: 1.318s | source | bottom
Show context
bri3d ◴[07 Dec 25 22:19 UTC] No.46185823[source]▶
https://web.archive.org/web/20111219004314/http://journal.th... (referenced, at least tangentially, in the video) is a piece from the engineering lead which does a great job discussing Why C++. The short summary is "they couldn't find enough people to write Ada, and even if they could, they also couldn't find enough Ada middleware and toolchain."

I actually think Ada would be an easier sell today than it was back then. It seems to me that the software field overall has become more open to a wider variety of languages and concepts, and knowing Ada wouldn't be perceived as widely as career pidgeonholing today. Plus, Ada is having a bit of a resurgence with stuff like NVidia picking SPARK.

replies(5): >>46188588 #>>46188799 #>>46189574 #>>46190668 #>>46196352 #
ecshafer ◴[08 Dec 25 05:43 UTC] No.46188799[source]▶
I've always strongly disliked this argument of not enough X programmers. If the DoD enforces the requirement for Ada, Universities, job training centers, and companies will follow. People can learn new languages. And the F35 and America's combat readiness would be in a better place today with Ada instead of C++.
replies(7): >>46189342 #>>46189545 #>>46189754 #>>46190651 #>>46191046 #>>46192553 #>>46192991 #
IshKebab ◴[08 Dec 25 08:24 UTC] No.46189754[source]▶
I agree. First of all I don't think Ada is a difficult language to learn. Hire C++ programmers and let them learn Ada.

Secondly, when companies say "we can't hire enough X" what they really mean is "X are too expensive". They probably have some strict salary bands and nobody had the power to change them.

In other words there are plenty of expensive good Ada and C++ programmers, but there are only cheap crap C++ programmers.

replies(4): >>46189872 #>>46190145 #>>46194786 #>>46203251 #
blub ◴[08 Dec 25 09:18 UTC] No.46190145[source]▶
Actually these kinds of projects are chronically over budget and the US military is notorious for wasting money.

Using C++ vs wishing an Ada ecosystem into existence may have been one of the few successful cost saving measures.

Keep in mind that these are not normal programmers. They need to have a security clearance and fulfill specific requirements.

replies(1): >>46191202 #
reactordev ◴[08 Dec 25 11:48 UTC] No.46191202[source]▶
They need to have very strict security clearance requirements and maintain them throughout the life of the project or their tenure. People don’t realize this isn’t some little embedded app you throw on an ESP32.

You’ll be interviewed, your family, your neighbors, your school teachers, your past bosses, your cousin once removed, your sheriff, your past lovers, and even your old childhood friends. Your life goes under a microscope.

replies(2): >>46191630 #>>46196456 #
1. nmfisher ◴[08 Dec 25 12:51 UTC] No.46191630[source]▶
I went through the TS positive vetting process (for signals intelligence, not writing software for fighter jets, but the process is presumably the same).

If I were back on the job market, I’d be demanding a big premium to go through it again. It’s very intrusive, puts significant limitations on where you can go, and adds significant job uncertainty (since your job is now tied to your clearance).

replies(3): >>46191892 #>>46192617 #>>46196045 #
2. reactordev ◴[08 Dec 25 13:20 UTC] No.46191892[source]▶
Yes but like a certification, that clearance is yours, not the companies. You take it with you. It lasts a good while. There are plenty of government companies that would love you if you had one. Northrop, Lockheed, Boeing, etc.
replies(1): >>46192551 #
3. ecshafer ◴[08 Dec 25 14:24 UTC] No.46192551[source]▶
An Engineering degree and a TS is basically a guaranteed job. They might not be the flashiest FAANG jobs, but it is job security. In this downturn where people talk about being unable to find jobs for years in big cities, I look around my local area and Lockheed, BAE, Booze Allen, etc they have openings.
replies(2): >>46192632 #>>46194110 #
4. galangalalgol ◴[08 Dec 25 14:30 UTC] No.46192617[source]▶
Not to mention embedded software is often half the pay of a startup and defense software often isn't work from home. Forget asking what languages they can hire for. They are relying on the work being interesting to compensate for dramatically less pay and substantially less pleasant working conditions. Factor in some portion of the workforce has ethical concerns working in the sector and you can see they will get three sorts of employees. Those who couldn't get a job elsewhere, those who want something cool on their resume, and those who love the domain. And they will lose the middle category right around the time they become productive members of the team because it was always just a stepping stone.
5. reactordev ◴[08 Dec 25 14:31 UTC] No.46192632{3}[source]▶
My issue is you end up dealing with dopes who don't want to learn, just want to milk the money and the job security, and actively fight you when you try to make things better. Institutionalized.
6. Xss3 ◴[08 Dec 25 16:18 UTC] No.46194110{3}[source]▶
They always have openings so investors think theyre hiring and growing. Many ads are for fictional positions.
7. 0xffff2 ◴[08 Dec 25 18:45 UTC] No.46196045[source]▶
And yet my experience looking at the deluge of clearance-required dev jobs from defense startups in the past couple of years is that there is absolutely no premium at all for clearance-required positions.