←back to thread

327 points AareyBaba | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
exDM69 ◴[] No.46191046[source]
> If the DoD enforces the requirement for Ada, Universities, job training centers, and companies will follow

DoD did enforce a requirement for Ada but universities and others did not follow.

The JSF C++ guidelines were created for circumventing the DoD Ada mandate (as discussed in the video).

replies(1): >>46193153 #
p_l ◴[] No.46193153[source]
TL;DR Ada programmers were more expensive
replies(1): >>46193686 #
adolph ◴[] No.46193686[source]
Since when was expense a problem for defense spending?

In the video, the narrator also claims that Ada compilers were expensive and thus students were dissuaded from trying it out. However, in researching this comment I founds that the Gnat project has been around since the early 90s. Maybe it wasn't complete enough until much later and maybe potential students of the time weren't using GNU?

  The GNAT project started in 1992 when the United States Air Force awarded New 
  York University (NYU) a contract to build a free compiler for Ada to help 
  with the Ada 9X standardization process. The 3-million-dollar contract 
  required the use of the GNU GPL for all development, and assigned the 
  copyright to the Free Software Foundation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNAT
replies(3): >>46194776 #>>46196002 #>>46197279 #
1. p_l ◴[] No.46197279[source]
Since on paper government cares about cost efficiency and you have to consider that in your lobbying materials.

Also it enables getting cheaper programmers who where possible might be isolated from the actual TS materiel to develop on the cheap so that the profit margin is bigger.

It gets worse outside of the flight side JSF software - or so it looks like from GAO reports. You don't turn around a culture of shittiness that fast, and I've seen earlier code in the same area (but not for JSF) by L-M... and well, it was among the worst code I've seen. Including failing even basic requirement of running on a specific version of a browser at minimum.