Conference turris::languages

Certainly, Ada was asked for with the intention of using it to develop
weapons systems.  At present, we can assume that all other known languages
are used in weapons and weapons research; does this mean we should abandon
all languages?  8080 code? 2901 code? FORTRAN? BASIC? 370 JCL? Jovial?
well, maybe jovial.

It is commendable that you should object in principle at least to weapons
development; it is a worrisome affair.  However, the entire computer
industry has been developed with funding from DOD, right down to the
chips used in the first Apple.  This is precisely the reason that people
of conscience should pursue computer-industry careers, i.e., to discover
peaceful uses of computing.  

Languages, such as Ada, are tools for programming.  It is possible to write
a disabled person assistance tool in Ada; it is possible to write a 
spelling checker in Ada; it is possible to write a Dragons and Swords
game in Ada; it is also possible to write  a guidance gyroscope 
monitoring program in Ada. or in BASIC, or in FORTRAN, or in Pascal, or in
C.  

Most important languages, I imagine, had their start in government
projects.  Ada is no exception.  Now put it to good use.

Tom

Wow!

1.  [Ada was developed by the DOD]
		-and-
2.  [The DOD wants to kill and oppress people in all sorts of nasty ways]

So?

I don't know anyone who refuses to read SF-LOVERS because the bits
had to travel over the (shudder) *DOD-sponsored* ARPAnet.

Are my thoughts merely the rationalization of a hack-crazed tool of the
military-industrial complex?  Or is it just possible that a new algorithm
or computer language whose inventor was paid by the DOD need be no more
blood-stained than if the same thing was invented by a Tibetan monk?  (I
assume for the purpose of this discussion that the monk isn't a CIA agent.)


You divide all DOD-sponsored programming into Embedded Applications and
Payroll.  I have seen a pie graph on spending somewhere that has Embedded
Applications, Engineering & Scientific Research, Payroll and Miscellaneous.
I can't find it, but perhaps Bevin, et. al. can supply us the with the
percentage of DOD money spent on Embedded Applications programming.  Let's
just call our interest in it a healthy interest in the magnitude and nature
of the Ada marketplace.  Speaking of which:

(CACM, p996, V27, #10, Oct-84; "Ada: Past, Present, Future: An Interview
with Jean Ichbiah, the Principle Designer of Ada")

"
Q.  To what extent are industry and business going to use Ada - especially
those industries not connected with the defense establishment?

Ichbiah.  The only thing that will stop the private sector from using Ada is
not having Ada compilers.  The minute compilers are widely available, Ada will
provide industry with solutions far superior to what they have had in the past.
Ada will be in great demand in industry. The choice will be more and more for
Ada in the private sector.  My own company is actually focusing 100 percent
on the private sector.  We consider the defense sector a subfield of the
general sector. After all, COBOL was very strongly supported by the DoD, but
who would say today that COBOL is a military language?
"

Gee, I hear DEC spent a pretty penny developing an Ada for the Vax.
If 90% of its use is going to be to kill people, then perhaps the
government is correct in stating that there are no significant non-military
applications for the 11/782.
				/AHM

The DoD regards ANY computers on board a battleship as 'embedded' regardless of
whether they control missiles or do the laundry.

Would you rather have the sophisticated programs written in Ada or assembler?
Personally I think the chances of WW III are reduced by the move to Ada, hence
peaceloving programmers everywhere should flock to it...

Finally /AHM is right - the long term market place is NOT the military.  It is
people everywhere that have large scale programming projects, including AT&T
and GM.

The use of Ada should reduce costs in a wide variety of areas and thus improve
the standard of living EVERYWHERE (not just in the US).


/Bevin

PS: I presume this means that the DoD should sponser the development of Ada
compilers for the Russians to use, since that would make the US safer...

Some good points have been raised in the replies.  I do take issue with
one of Bevin's comments, though:  that making the war machine more reliable
reduces the chance of accidental holocaust.  This may be true, but it
INCREASES the chance of an INTENTIONAL one.  Personally, I think nuclear
weapons should be as flaky and unreliable as possible.  The more unreliable
a weapons system, the less the military will rely on it.  One of the good
things about test-ban treaties is that if you're not allowed to test your
warheads, you're never really sure they'll WORK when the time comes.  If
you can't be sure they'll work, you're a lot less likely to use them.

On a slightly different note, it's true that the DoD has funded much
of the significant computer science research of the past 25 years.
However, while in the past there was strong support for "basic research"
kinds of things, these days the emphasis is definitely narrowing down
to weapons systems (intelligent tanks, missiles, battlefield assistants, etc.)

I don't think there's too much wrong with taking the DoD's money to
investigate functional programming, or formal languages, or any reasonably
academic kind of study.  But when you start designing guidance systems
for cruise missiles, well, that's a very different question.

Suppressing knowledge in any form is more likely to result in "evil" than
making it freely available.

Consider the knowledge required to build an atomic bomb.  This knowledge is
beyond the reach of normal men; only a "good" government like the USA or an
"evil" government like the USSR can provide that information, right ?  Then
a reporter writes an article on how to build an a-bomb from materials in the
public libraries.  Before the article, one might jump to the conclusion that
an a-bomb set off in NYC was supplied by the USSR (obviously not the USA), but
after the article, many more people might consider the possibility that some
very crazed people built one and nuked New York.  Substitute Cairo or New Delhi
or Terheran for NYC.  Whose view would you prefer:  the military view that
things can be kept secret and therefore only governments (US government in this
case) can set off a bomb in these places or the realistic view that knowledge
can't be contained and that anyone with enough determination can set off a bomb.

I'm sure that the DoD will someday find the common use of Ada counter to its
purposes because the DoD and those of similar thought think that certain
thoughts should be restricted to only those people who are "free from evil".
{The best thing about Republicans is the internal inconsistency of free markets,
evil government, and individual freedom with military might and right.}

Re .3:

At the Honeywell meeting, Ichbiah mentioned that the Ada standard is being
translated into French and Russian.  One of the two (I forget which) is not
going to be a "mere translation", but will have the full force of a standard.

Re .4:

So they should use assembler in the missile guidance systems, but Ada for
the early warning radar systems, eh?

The current copy of Scientific American has an interesting article on
communications (CCCI) during nuclear war.  Y'all should read it.
				/AHM

  <flame on>
  I was never a big fan of guilt by association.  Castigating Ada because the
  language was designed for DoD (Death or Destruction?) is analogous to
  criticising a person on the basis of ethnic or religious background.  For
  all peoples <x>, there are {criminals|drunkards|stupid people} amongst them,
  so we should hate all <x> and everything they do, right?

  And while we're at it, we work for DEC.  DEC has competitors who are trying
  to drive us out of business -- AT&T (C and SNOBOL) and IBM (APL, FORTRAN,
  PL/I and RPG).  Shouldn't we shun the languages of our competitors as well?

  I forget exactly who it was, but some prominent computer scientist once said
  that computer science will make no real progress until we learn to stand on
  each other's shoulders rather than on each other's toes.
  <flame off>

  -- Bill B.

Hey Guys! 

Give DOD a break!  If they want the widest possible dissemination of ADA(TM),
then we complain. 

If they want to keep all the research regarding cryptographic algorithms
secret, we still complain. 

Aren't we fickle? 

Pat Sweeney 

	Ada may indeed be very useful for non-military things, but the flip
side of that is that things written in languages other than Ada will probably
not be used by the military.
	Suppose, for example, I write a nifty all-purpose text preprocessor.
Text preprocessors can be used by everyone, for good or for evil.  If I were
to write it in a language other than Ada, the military might not be able to
use it.
	I've heard this line of reasoning from people who write a lot of
"freeware".  Of course, the military doesn't run on freeware; but as a paci-
fist I can respect their position.
		<_Jym_>