The linked paper also gives a summary of the issues with using Ada -- tl;dr: We like the language, but no one's learning it and no one's supporting it.
Which is kind of sad, because the very thing that makes Ada useful -- stability and maturity -- is the thing that's killing it.
Seems like there is pretty good support now from AdaCore.
The main thrust of this appears to be that "fresh college graduates are not putting Ada on their resumes."
I suppose these guys from Lockheed know what they're talking about... but to me, the idea that you pick a language based on whether it's being taught in universities is just asinine. If your engineers are not smart enough to learn a new language, they're not smart enough to go near any kind of software that has anything to do with an airplane.
Even more troubling, this suggests that engineers are treated as "cogs" that can't be re-trained and just become obsolete as soon as the "main language they learned in school" (the top places don't focus down on one language too much IMO) becomes obsolete.
Agreed, it's troubling. Ada is easier to learn than C++.
I'm wondering if the whole thing was orchestrated by C++ static analysis tool vendors. Or some set of byzantine keyword-centric recruiting requirements make it difficult to hire someone who is capable of learning Ada.
