←back to thread

327 points AareyBaba | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bri3d ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
nmfisher ◴[] 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 #
1. 0xffff2 ◴[] 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.