Ada in Boeing 787
in [ADA]
|
Prev: Temporary variables
Next: About the F-22 software bug
From: Georg Bauhaus on 4 Feb 2010 05:19 Jerry schrieb: > I have an engineer friend who is a long-time employee of Honeywell > Flight Systems who claims that the Boeing 787 does not use Ada ("It's > an old language"). My friend, as i recall, manages a project involving > the airplane's entertainment system which he says uses C and C++ and > not Ada. I don't doubt that his subsystem uses C but a bit of web > research seems to indicate that the flight systems use Ada. Who is > right--the web or my friend who works on the airplane? Is there any new language that is largely being used for technical applications? Ichbiah said, in 1984, that we would be using different programming 30 years from then. Do we? I mean, do we actually use them in embedded systems? Does Java count as new?
From: Ludovic Brenta on 4 Feb 2010 05:32 On Feb 4, 5:09 am, Jerry <lancebo...(a)qwest.net> wrote: > I have an engineer friend who is a long-time employee of Honeywell > Flight Systems who claims that the Boeing 787 does not use Ada ("It's > an old language"). My friend, as i recall, manages a project involving > the airplane's entertainment system which he says uses C and C++ and > not Ada. I don't doubt that his subsystem uses C but a bit of web > research seems to indicate that the flight systems use Ada. Who is > right--the web or my friend who works on the airplane? Ada is in the Common Core system: http://www.adacore.com/2004/04/20/wind-river-teams-with-adacore-on-platform-safety-critical-arinc-653-for-use-in-boeing-7e7-common-core-system/ Ada is in the air conditioning: http://www.adacore.com/2006/05/01/hamilton-sundstrand-selects-gnat-pro-for-boeing-787-air-conditioning-pack-control-unit/ Friends don't let friends program in C++. -- Ludovic Brenta.
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov on 4 Feb 2010 06:05 On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:19:13 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Is there any new language that is largely being used for > technical applications? > > Ichbiah said, in 1984, that we would be using different > programming 30 years from then. Do we? I mean, do we > actually use them in embedded systems? The focus moved from languages to the tools and "technologies." The languages obviously failed to deliver acclaimed software quality while reducing software developing costs. I doubt that tools did either, maybe the opposite, but this is how it works in the area I know. I think the reason why tools won is that the language design is far more expensive and the market was ruined if ever existed. Producing a new tool chain is a much easier task. Once you fooled the customers you are in business. Before they recognize that the tool is useless, you or other firm come up with another tool, on the top of the old one... -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
From: Alex R. Mosteo on 4 Feb 2010 08:19 Jerry wrote: > I have an engineer friend who is a long-time employee of Honeywell > Flight Systems who claims that the Boeing 787 does not use Ada ("It's > an old language"). My friend, as i recall, manages a project involving > the airplane's entertainment system which he says uses C and C++ and > not Ada. I don't doubt that his subsystem uses C but a bit of web > research seems to indicate that the flight systems use Ada. Who is > right--the web or my friend who works on the airplane? Digressing -- but in-flight entertainment systems are one of the buggiest pieces of code I have faced. After two flights waiting for the cabin crew to reset mine when I tried some obscure choices, I just stick to playing movies and hope for the best.
From: Florian Weimer on 4 Feb 2010 11:34
* Georg Bauhaus: > Ichbiah said, in 1984, that we would be using different > programming 30 years from then. Do we? Yes, there's now Tcl, Perl, Python, PHP, and Ruby, with somewhat different development processes and quite difference performance characteristics. > I mean, do we actually use them in embedded systems? What about Lua? |