Rival JSF teams fly final STOVL flights with flair, highlight strengths
Ken Garlington
31 July 2001
Rival JSF teams fly final STOVL flights with flair, highlight strengths
Lockheed Martin's X-35B Joint Strike Fighter concept demonstrator completed
STOVL flight testing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., July 30, two days
after the competing Boeing team flew five flights in a day to complete
flight testing of its X-32B.
Spokesman John Kent said July 30 that three flights earlier in the day were
the last scheduled to be flown in Short Takeoff Vertical Landing mode. One
or more flights in conventional wingborne mode were possible, but the team
expected to fly the X-32B back to Palmdale, Calif., July 31 or August 1, he
said. At Palmdale, the aircraft will be placed in temperature-controlled
storage so that it could fly additional tests if the government should
request them.
Boeing announced July 30 that on July 28 a U.S. Marine Corps test pilot,
Maj. Jeff Karnes, flew the X-32B on its 77th flight, at Naval Air Station
Patuxent River, Md. He made a short takeoff, transitioned to conventional
flight, accelerated to supersonic speed, switched back to STOVL mode, and
made a slow landing, Boeing said.
Later in the day, British Royal Navy Lt. Cmdr. Paul Stone went supersonic in
the X-32B on the 78th and final flight of the program.
"The X-32B test program was a resounding success, thanks in part to our
innovative use of modeling and simulation as well as the outstanding efforts
of the Boeing One Team," said Frank Statkus, Boeing vice president and JSF
general manager. "The government has made it clear that it's buying not only
an airplane but also a management team. Our performance during this test
program says everything about our team."
The Boeing team consistently stresses its management ability even more than
the performance of its concept demonstrator. The competing X-35 team led by
Lockheed Martin, while expressing confidence in its ability to produce and
deliver the JSF, tends to highlight the performance of its concept
demonstrator. Both teams earlier completed all flight testing needed to meet
government requirements and in the final series of STOVL tests were
gathering more data and trying to show what their aircraft can do.
The Boeing X-32B performed all the government-required tests, including
short takeoffs and vertical landings, and made several supersonic runs as
well.
Lockheed Martin's X-35B, in addition to doing all that, made some vertical
takeoffs, and, in an ambitious regime called Mission X, was able to do it
all in a single flight.
U.S. Marine Corps Maj. Art "Turbo" Tomassetti flew the first Mission X on
July 20. The flight included a short takeoff at 80 knots, conversion from
STOVL to conventional wingborne flight, a climb to 25,000 ft., a supersonic
dash to 1.05 Mach, tests of the aircraft's flying qualities, conversion back
to STOVL mode, a hover at 150 ft., and a vertical landing.
Lockheed Martin said this was the first time anyone had made a short
takeoff, a supersonic run and a vertical landing, all in a single
flight.
Boeing has made short takeoffs, supersonic runs, and vertical landings, but
not in one flight.
The Boeing concept demonstrator has a cowl used in supersonic flights that
is removed for STOVL flight. In a production aircraft, Boeing said, a
translating (adjustable) cowl would eliminate the need for the procedure.
Expanding the envelope
In three flights at Edwards July 26, the Lockheed Martin team went beyond
Mission X and expanded the X-35B's flight envelope.
In the first flight of the day, with test pilot Simon Hargreaves of BAE
Systems at the controls, the X-35B rose into the desert sky just after dawn
in a short takeoff at 80 knots, went to afterburner and streaked past the
F-16 chase plane to 25,000 ft., attaining a speed of 1.06 Mach. Hargreaves
made two 360-degree rolls at 20 degrees angle of attack and refueled from a
tanker before slowing, returning to STOVL mode, and making a vertical
landing.
After refueling on the ground, the pilot made an automatic short takeoff,
rotating at 60 knots, climbed to 25,000 ft. for further flying qualities
tests, refueled from the tanker, descended, went to STOVL mode, and hovered.
During the hover, Hargreaves used only the rudder pedals to make a smooth
360-degree "pirouette," as he later described it. He then landed vertically.
Lockheed Martin's chief JSF test pilot, Tom Morgenfeld, flew the third
flight, taking off, flying and landing conventionally. Taking off with the
afterburner for maximum power, Morgenfeld accelerated to 1.2 Mach at 25,000
feet and conducted flying quality tests, Kent said. At 30,000 ft.,
Morgenfeld made some runs from 0.8 to 1.2 Mach. During the flight, which
lasted 2.7 hours, he refueled from a tanker six times.
"He just wanted to punch up the envelope a bit" and get the Mach numbers up,
Kent said.
Flying qualities were tested further in a flight July 29, Kent said. The
Lockheed Martin team made three flights July 30, Kent said. While he had few
details, he said they accomplished hover and up-and-away test points and
included short takeoffs and use of the afterburners.
"They'll probably do some more up-and-away testing and then fly the plane to
Palmdale," he said. "STOVL testing is complete."
- Lee Ewing (lee_...@AviationNow.com)
Copyright 2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Blain Shinno
"Mission X" illustrates that Boeing did not do a particularly good job
in designing their CDA. LM did an impressive job with their CDA, but I
wonder if it's last minute gamble on their part to win the contract.
Not that they have an inadquate design or that their ability to manage
a program like this differs considerably from Boeing, but maybe they
kind of know that the cards are stacked again them. They must not just
be slightly better than Boeing, but must really out perform them. I
question whether the DOD would award another large fighter contract to
LM due to not only industrial base concerns but competitive concerns
as well. If LM wins the JSF contract then it will be unable to use the
program to control F-22 costs. I think this is what LM is thinking.
Assuming Boeing wins, LM will likely be brought on as a major
subcontractor (with Northrop-Grumman too?). Even with LM building
major components DOD will still have leverage over the F-22, or am I
wrong?
I wonder if there are parallels with the ATF program. I favored the
YF-23 due to its innovative design and emphasis on stealth and speed,
which were the two main requirements of the ATF SPO. LM won because
they didn't listen to the program office and went instead with what
TAC wanted, a fighter that balanced agility and stealth. It's
demonstrator also went further in exploring its flight envelop and the
company had a development plan that the AF liked. I wonder what
factors will influence this program selection? For me the fact that
Boeing doesn't have much experience in developing fighters and the
development of a flawed CDA does not bode well for EMD.
Ken Garlington
"Blain Shinno" <B2B...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:945d79ff.01073...@posting.google.com...
: Say Ken,
: "Mission X" illustrates that Boeing did not do a particularly good job
: in designing their CDA.
Possibly. Boeing says that (a) they intentionally built their aircraft to do
only the minimum required to demonstrate their technology, presumably for
cost reasons and (b) that changes in Government requirements
(wind-over-deck, apparently) impacted their design.
: LM did an impressive job with their CDA, but I
: wonder if it's last minute gamble on their part to win the contract.
No. "Mission X" was a planned test at least as far back as when I joined the
program (1997), and probably much earlier. A recent article quoted Harry
Blot as to the motivation. He had once been burned by a contractor who had
demonstrated multiple capabilities, but not at the same time (a la Boeing).
Later, it turned out that the equipment couldn't do all the functions at
once. As a result, he insisted that the LM entry do "Mission X".
: Not that they have an inadquate design or that their ability to manage
: a program like this differs considerably from Boeing, but maybe they
: kind of know that the cards are stacked again them. They must not just
: be slightly better than Boeing, but must really out perform them. I
: question whether the DOD would award another large fighter contract to
: LM due to not only industrial base concerns but competitive concerns
: as well. If LM wins the JSF contract then it will be unable to use the
: program to control F-22 costs. I think this is what LM is thinking.
: Assuming Boeing wins, LM will likely be brought on as a major
: subcontractor (with Northrop-Grumman too?). Even with LM building
: major components DOD will still have leverage over the F-22, or am I
: wrong?
The F-22 contract is already shared between LM and Boeing, so I'm not sure
LM carries as big a penalty as you might think. I also think the financial
implications are more complex. We'll see.
: I wonder if there are parallels with the ATF program. I favored the
: YF-23 due to its innovative design and emphasis on stealth and speed,
: which were the two main requirements of the ATF SPO.
I started on the F-22 program in the mid-1980's, and my conversations with
SPO and readings of the contract documents never indicated that speed was as
high a priority as stealth.
: LM won because
: they didn't listen to the program office and went instead with what
: TAC wanted, a fighter that balanced agility and stealth. It's
: demonstrator also went further in exploring its flight envelop and the
: company had a development plan that the AF liked. I wonder what
: factors will influence this program selection? For me the fact that
: Boeing doesn't have much experience in developing fighters and the
: development of a flawed CDA does not bode well for EMD.
I think Boeing (St Louis) has plenty of experience with fighters.
Tarver Engineering
<snip>
> LM won because
> they didn't listen to the program office and went instead with what
> TAC wanted, a fighter that balanced agility and stealth.
The YF-23 was far stealthier than the YF-22. LM won because they bought
into the DARPA Ada subsidy and Northrop knew that would screw the pooch. LM
has since provewd to be incompetent to implement Ada in the main computer
and BAE is now having a crack at it.
John
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Ken Garlington
news:3b67f...@binarykiller.newsgroups.com...
:
: "Blain Shinno" <B2B...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:945d79ff.01073...@posting.google.com...
:
: <snip>
:
: > LM won because
: > they didn't listen to the program office and went instead with what
: > TAC wanted, a fighter that balanced agility and stealth.
:
: The YF-23 was far stealthier than the YF-22.
The tarverbot, of course, had access to all the classified data, and so is
an expert on this subject. Oh, wait, sorry, it's not stealth he's an expert
in, it's Sterno.
: LM won because they bought
: into the DARPA Ada subsidy and Northrop knew that would screw the pooch.
LM
: has since provewd to be incompetent to implement Ada in the main computer
: and BAE is now having a crack at it.
Well, it's true LM was an early adopter of Ada (anticipating the F-22 EMD
contract requirement, as mandated by the U.S. Congress). The statement is of
course wrong in every other respect. Considering that the tarverbot can't
even spell software (literally!), I suppose one true item in a sea of
inaccuracies is the best we can hope for...
Jon Parmet
> [snip]
> I suppose one true item in a sea of inaccuracies is the best we can hope for...
A SAR that wasn't worth the effort given what was recovered :p Let it
sink to the bottom of the ocean floor ...
Buescher Family
Geoffrey
Bob
in 1983 (after a multi-year selection and refinement process involving Hundreds of
people in industry, government, and the military) and another updated design was
published in the mid 90s. It is a strongly typed language like Pascal that was
inbtended to support embedded programming. For a while it was mandated by law for
programs, but that was relieved some years ago. The 90s version incorporated
objects.
The language is fine, but it is expensive because commercial use never caught on.
Tools are extremely expensive and available for only a few target computers.
Several late-80-s - early 90s aircraft projects were caught in the Ada mandate
F-22 among them.
Today most DOD projects use C or C++. C++ is basically Ada with full polymorphism
(objects)and C syntax. Actually, most C++ these days is just C compiled with a C++
compiler. Object oriented systems in my experience do not provide any advantage in
real time development. I'm sure a lot of Ada zealots will flame this
statement,.but I have worked on C4I, signal processing, and now flight control for
UAVs and obect oriented design helps very little, and then in very obscure parts
of the system. Simple old techiques of modularity, high cohesion and low coupling
are more directly applicable.
IMHO, Ada was killed by its proponents who made it a holy writ rather than a tool.
The more it was crammed down peoples throats the more they resisted. Another
factor was that the implicit development paradigm shifted from the 80s model of a
central computer with a lot of remote terminals (VAX) to the current
workstation/PC on a net model.
The central computer allowed one compiler to serve many so a multi-thousand dollar
price tag was acceptable. But if each programmer had his/her own computer with
several times the Vax computing power having a local compiler made sense. Borland
and Microsoft provided Pascal or C/C++ for a few hundred dollars for each PC, and
SUN/HP/SGI were not very much more per station. In fact the Gnu compiler for C/C++
is quite good and is free, and versions are available for both Windows and Unix.
Ada continues as a legacy language, with systems being derived from the projects
of the 80s/early 90s, but there are not a lot of new starts. One interesting note
is that most of the Boeing digital airliners use Ada, meaning any versions that
have fly-by-wire. But my view is that Boeing makes the tool work well for them
rather than the tool creating quality systems by virtue of its own qualities.
I actually like Ada as a tool, but time and economics have passed it by.
It should also be noted that many of the people that gave you Ada went on to work
at the DODs Software Engineering Institute (SEI) that gave us the highly
bureaucratic and expensive 5 level software process ratings.
Bob
UAV Software Lead
Buescher Family
Geoffrey
David Elliot
>The language is fine, but it is expensive because commercial use never caught on.
>Tools are extremely expensive and available for only a few target computers.
>Several late-80-s - early 90s aircraft projects were caught in the Ada mandate
>F-22 among them.
>In fact the Gnu compiler for C/C++
>is quite good and is free, and versions are available for both Windows and Unix.
Well there has been a free Ada compiler ^ tools for PC/Unix platforms for some
time now.
ftp://cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat/ http://www.adapower.com/
Brad Benson
Perhaps, but there is almost no way those are proven to be of high
enough quality. They very well might be, but it's not been proven.
Brad Benson, CP-ASMEL/IA
Airport Insight - The first airport guide and directory for Palm!
http://www.notamd.com
David Elliot
ACT (also via SGI & WindRiver) as well as free public domain (GPL) versions. So
there is no problem using it on aircraft projects. You get what you pay for
:-). In fact it's the ideal way. Use the free version to informally try it
out, then go for the supported version when your project relies on it...
p.s. interestingly the GNAT compiler uses the GCC backend. The same as that for
the free GNU C/C++ compilers (for which you can also pay for support).
So the're both as 'proven' and of high enough quality.
Dave
Ken Garlington
: Ada is a programming language developed by DOD. The first standard was
published
: in 1983 (after a multi-year selection and refinement process involving
Hundreds of
: people in industry, government, and the military) and another updated
design was
: published in the mid 90s. It is a strongly typed language like Pascal that
was
: inbtended to support embedded programming. For a while it was mandated by
law for
: programs, but that was relieved some years ago. The 90s version
incorporated
: objects.
:
: The language is fine, but it is expensive because commercial use never
caught on.
: Tools are extremely expensive and available for only a few target
computers.
: Several late-80-s - early 90s aircraft projects were caught in the Ada
mandate
: F-22 among them.
Actually, none of the statements above are quite true:
- Ada is still used today on new commercial projects,
- There are free, open source, and commercial versions of Ada toolsets
available for a variety of platforms, including processors that run
Microsoft Windows, Linux, and a variety of embedded OSs.
- F-22 and other projects used Ada before there was a mandate, and continue
to do after the lifting of the mandate.
: Today most DOD projects use C or C++. C++ is basically Ada with full
polymorphism
: (objects)and C syntax.
This is just plain wrong.
: Actually, most C++ these days is just C compiled with a C++
Not surprisingly, this is also true of the GNU Ada toolset!
: Ada continues as a legacy language, with systems being derived from the
projects
: of the 80s/early 90s, but there are not a lot of new starts. One
interesting note
: is that most of the Boeing digital airliners use Ada, meaning any versions
that
: have fly-by-wire. But my view is that Boeing makes the tool work well for
them
: rather than the tool creating quality systems by virtue of its own
qualities.
:
: I actually like Ada as a tool, but time and economics have passed it by.
:
: It should also be noted that many of the people that gave you Ada went on
to work
: at the DODs Software Engineering Institute (SEI) that gave us the highly
: bureaucratic and expensive 5 level software process ratings.
This is also a highly incorrect characterization of the Capability Maturity
Model (presumably what is meant by "process ratings").
For more information on the Ada language, see comp.lang.ada
: Bob
:
Bob Fritz
liar. Suffice it to say that 23 years experience with DOD software including
participation in the Red/Green selection and the early Ada process through the
late 80s result in my statements.
Bob
>
Tony Gair
1. Ada is not dead, in fact it has obviously been highly developed with lots
of useful components out there.
2. C++ is, if I get hold of him.
3. You US types make me laugh, laugh, laugh, not necessarily with you
either. Keep up the good work.
( I love your little fat little munchkin faces when you're angry)
Ted Dennison
says...
>: polymorphism (objects)and C syntax.
>
>This is just plain wrong.
Actually, wrong doesn't even begin to describe it. Ada supports both compile
time and runtime polymorphism (I assume that's what's meant by "full
polymorphism). C++ did indeed borrow some of Ada's ideas (eg: exceptions,
generics, line comments), but by no means all the important ones. For instance
it still does not sport any kind of native concurrency support, which is one of
Ada's big draws. C++ does have some of C's syntax but it has a lot of its own
too. C++ is a definite improvement over C, but its hardly a suitable substitue
for Ada.
I find the emphasis on C++ rather odd anyway. For the job I'm working on, the
argument was that FORTRAN would have been better used. The one before that, the
arguers wanted C. The one before that, they were switching from CMS-2. All of
these were post-mandate Ada jobs. I have yet to see a full-up C++ DoD job
(though I've no doubt some exist). The funny thing is that in each case, none of
the folks who wanted a different language were actually doing the work. People
who actually *use* Ada for a while tend to quickly see its benifits.
---
T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
home email - mailto:denn...@telepath.com
Christopher Biow
>The language is fine, but it is expensive because commercial use never caught on.
>Tools are extremely expensive and available for only a few target computers.
I don't think the result would have been the least bit different if
compilers and tools had been available for free. Or if they'd been free
with $1000 bills included.
>Several late-80-s - early 90s aircraft projects were caught in the Ada mandate
>F-22 among them.
Of course, its impact was wider than merely aircraft programs. I'd like to
see a total damage estimate across DoD programs of government believing it
could still steer software standards. (I'll leave it to someone else to
mutilate dog/tail/cart/horse metaphors.)
Not only did the OSD crowd that pushed this most intensely miss the point
on government's place in industry and what constitutes merit in a language,
but they also bought hook, line, and sinker the mostly unjustified
assumption that language diversity is a Bad Thing.
>...Object oriented systems in my experience do not provide any advantage in
>real time development.
Nor are they a silver bullet in *any* domain. Mostly, the improvement is
incremental.
>Ada continues as a legacy language, with systems being derived from the projects
>of the 80s/early 90s, but there are not a lot of new starts. One interesting note
>is that most of the Boeing digital airliners use Ada, meaning any versions that
>have fly-by-wire. But my view is that Boeing makes the tool work well for them
>rather than the tool creating quality systems by virtue of its own qualities.
I suspect that a company could make the Brain*uck language
<http://www.catseye.mb.ca/esoteric/bf/> "work", if enough effort were
applied.
>I actually like Ada as a tool, but time and economics have passed it by.
Oh, it's a slick, fun language. That and twenty-five cents...
>It should also be noted that many of the people that gave you Ada went on to work
>at the DODs Software Engineering Institute (SEI) that gave us the highly
>bureaucratic and expensive 5 level software process ratings.
I hadn't realized that the same villains were involved, but that explains a
great deal.
I've come to believe that every spin of Doc Searls' Buzzphrase Generator
<http://www.buzzphraser.com/> is a million-dollar opportunity, if only the
phrase could be shrinkwrapped and pitched to a government exec.
--
ObAviation:
Multi-Neutral Airborne Environment-Referenced Innovation Centers
Fully Alternative Global Position-Driven Host Contingency
Backwards-Utilized New Machine-Structured Resource Maintenance
Reciprocally Extended Virtual Architecture-Connected Flight Control
Ken Garlington
news:3B6DE593...@home.com...
: If I really cared about Ada I would rebut these remarks essentially
And my experience with DoD software, Ada applications, and contributions to
the Ada language standard -- also starting in the early days of Ada, but
then continuing through the 1990s and up to today -- indicates that your Ada
experience (which apparently ended over a decade ago) may be out of date.
Furthermore, there are contemporary references available from the Internet
that support my statements. To choose one of my points at random: If you do
not believe that there is a GNU compiler for Ada that is quite good and is
free, with versions available for both Windows and Unix, you can download a
version and see for yourself. Try the following sites for free downloads of
GNAT version 3.13p:
wuarchive.wustl.edu/languages/ada/compiler/gnat/distrib/3.13p/
packages.debian.org/unstable/devel/gnat.html
linux.davecentral.com/4634_programcomp.html
Additional Ada tools (some released under the GPL) are available at:
www.rrsoftware.com/html/prodinf/claw/clawintro.html
If you like to buy support with your compiler, try www.gnat.com.
(As an aside, I note that I used no personal attacks in my prior post --
certainly the word "liar" was never used. If you generally react this badly
to the possibility that you might be wrong, how did you ever make it through
23 years of software engineering without a nervous breakdown? :)
Ken Garlington
news:2Dsb7.72072$_b4.6...@news1.cableinet.net...
: 3. You US types make me laugh, laugh, laugh, not necessarily with you
: either. Keep up the good work.
: ( I love your little fat little munchkin faces when you're angry)
Another case of USA envy :)
Matthew V. Jessick
Ted Dennison wrote:
> Actually, wrong doesn't even begin to describe it. Ada supports both compile
> time and runtime polymorphism (I assume that's what's meant by "full
> polymorphism). C++ did indeed borrow some of Ada's ideas (eg: exceptions,
> generics, line comments), but by no means all the important ones. For instance
> it still does not sport any kind of native concurrency support, which is one of
> Ada's big draws. C++ does have some of C's syntax but it has a lot of its own
> too. C++ is a definite improvement over C, but its hardly a suitable substitue
> for Ada.
I've worked with UAV algorithms and software in Ada and now
work in video games using C++.
C++ to me requires considerably more discipline to program without
silly bugs.
The if (A=B) { mistake where B is copied into A and if non-zero
the if condition is true.
if (A)
B;
C;
where C appears to be part of the loop but really isn't
just because the first programmer didn't "waste" time
putting in some "superfluous" curly braces and the maintenance
programmer wasn't sufficiently alert to catch it.
The case problem of having to hand code break statements
to separate case blocks:
switch(a)
case b:
sdfdasf;
adsfdaadsf;
case c:
break;
In Ada, every possible value for (a) is required to be handled.
The additional error potential of hand coding break statements
is also removed.
And don't even get me started on {}{}{{{}}{}{}{}{}{{}
;}
or macros or multi-dimensional array syntax
or default argument passing by value or...
It just isn't suited to coding logic statements without
silly mistakes. (There are coding standards you can impose
to reduce these mistakes, but I miss my Ada compiler each time
I make one of them.)
- Matt
Mike Harvey
Federal Weapons purcurement when software is written to make it
standardized in one format.
John Keeney
Matthew V. Jessick <mjes...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3B6F73F9...@gte.net...
> The if (A=B) { mistake where B is copied into A and if non-zero
> the if condition is true.
Actually, I've writen this code more than a few times, and meant it.
Generally more in context of loops though.
Emmanuel Gustin
news:3B6F73F9...@gte.net...
> C++ to me requires considerably more discipline to program
> without silly bugs.
For any large project, I suspect that C++/C software is also
more expensive than software written in a modern language.
The compilers may be cheap but that is beside the point;
because of the rather unsafe characteristics of these languages
the debugging stage of development is inevitably longer and
validation more difficult. That quickly becomes much more
expensive than even a US$ 10,000 compiler.
The best excuse for using C/C++ is that, as C is basically
a gold-plated assembler, it is convenient for implementing
low-level interactions with hardware. But for a large and
mission-critical application it too unsafe. You never know
*for sure* that it isn't going to set its pointers to the wrong
address and crash the entire environment. And the aircraft
with it.
--
Emmanuel Gustin <gus...@NoSpam.uia.ac.be>
(Delete NoSpam. from my address. If you can't reach me, your host
may be on our spam filter list. Check http://www.uia.ac.be/cc/spam.html.)
Marin David Condic
quite as wonderful as Ada is for low-level interaction with the hardware. To
illustrate - try building a struct in which you can control the
representation as exactly as you can build an Ada record for the same job. C
leaves too many "implementation defined" behaviors and/or simply doesn't
give you control over representation. It ends up a lot easier in Ada. And
for all of C's bit-twiddling capabilities (shifting, and/or ops, etc.) Ada
has exact parallels, so I just don't see it as having an advantage. (And
I've written low-level stuff in both languages, so I don't think there is
any lack of experience with either one coloring my judgement.)
MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail: marin....@pacemicro.com
Web: http://www.mcondic.com/
"Emmanuel Gustin" <Emmanue...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:9krue8$5v03n$1...@ID-52877.news.dfncis.de...
Ken Garlington
news:6mkumt0sra0jc2ejs...@4ax.com...
: Ada is a computer language that has been mandated to be used on
: Federal Weapons purcurement when software is written to make it
: standardized in one format.
The Ada mandate was dropped some time back.
:
bendel boy
But why would you want to mean this?
For my money, I would prefer the Algol approach:
if (0 = A := B) then
which would be interpreted as
(i) assign B to A -- assignment clause
(ii) test if A is zero -- logical clause
The C code makes use of a confusing short-cut, allowing confusion
between assignment, numbers, and booleans. Great for the experienced
programmer - fatal for the follow-on maintenance.
bendel boy
> projects of the 80s/early 90s, but there are not a lot of new starts.
From my experience C/C++ counts as a legacy language. For my work
Fortran 90/95 is the current language.
Legacy language = we got burnt, so no longer use it; OR the college
kids are no longer taught it, so we've switched to the flavour of the
month.
In our case, we got burnt. We took working Fortran, wrote glue C++,
and had a product that failed on three counts: time scale, budget, and
doing the job.
Choose the the language that is best for the job - I wouldn't use
Fortran to write an arcade game, and I wouldn't see C++ as the best
language for solving maths systems. Ada is a lot like Algol-68, and
that was to me the 'crsipest' language I ever used.