4 ms·

The one criticism that I don't agree with is, "The DoD likes it." The DoD is a huge place. Sure, most of it is extremely bureaucratic and planning oriented, but

The one criticism that I don't agree with is, "The DoD likes it." The DoD is a huge place. Sure, most of it is extremely bureaucratic and planning oriented, but there are a few hacker friendly corners (DARPA, anyone?) here and there. I also don't agree with his criticism of Ada. Yeah, Ada isn't a good choice if you're building a web app that needs to be out next week. But Ada wasn't ever intended to be used for that sort of software. Ada was designed to build absolutely reliable software. I'd rather have the Space Shuttle's control software written in Ada than Java.

jasonjei 16y ago
The DoD doesn't exactly promote a hacker culture in the civilian roles; however, depending on branch of service (e.g most likely not marines) and role (officers and above), there is latitude for creativity. Of course, anyone who has worked the civilian side of DoD knows how bureaucratic it is, and I think pg is right to say that if DoD likes it, it's probably not a great sign. For instance, you can't submit invoices (you have to use a convoluted procurement application and enter it through a very 90s looking app). There are paperwork mandated by Congress and administrative agencies (GSA). And let's consider the Goliath that is DFAS. They use Oracle. And Oracle Forms.
jeff95350 16y ago
"I'd rather have the Space Shuttle's control software written in Ada than Java." That's what I was thinking, too. Was Ada really meant for "other people" to use? I wonder how many people involved in the process went on to write Ada afterward? I don't know the facts, but I would guess that the critical system software writers in the US are a fairly small group, and anyone on that committee knew they would end up writing a lot of Ada afterward. I doubt it was the same kind of "make a language for the masses" simply because there aren't masses of people capable of writing software for critical systems. I would guess that it had more to do with a mutual pact: programmers have to add extra annotation for interfaces and constraints; but in return they can absolutely rely on those interfaces and constraints because they know that the compiler enforces them.

jasonjei 16y ago

The DoD doesn't exactly promote a hacker culture in the civilian roles; however, depending on branch of service (e.g most likely not marines) and role (officers and above), there is latitude for creativity. Of course, anyone who has worked the civilian side of DoD knows how bureaucratic it is, and I think pg is right to say that if DoD likes it, it's probably not a great sign. For instance, you can't submit invoices (you have to use a convoluted procurement application and enter it through a very 90s looking app). There are paperwork mandated by Congress and administrative agencies (GSA). And let's consider the Goliath that is DFAS. They use Oracle. And Oracle Forms.

jeff95350 16y ago

"I'd rather have the Space Shuttle's control software written in Ada than Java." That's what I was thinking, too. Was Ada really meant for "other people" to use? I wonder how many people involved in the process went on to write Ada afterward? I don't know the facts, but I would guess that the critical system software writers in the US are a fairly small group, and anyone on that committee knew they would end up writing a lot of Ada afterward. I doubt it was the same kind of "make a language for the masses" simply because there aren't masses of people capable of writing software for critical systems. I would guess that it had more to do with a mutual pact: programmers have to add extra annotation for interfaces and constraints; but in return they can absolutely rely on those interfaces and constraints because they know that the compiler enforces them.