Ralph E. Crafts wrote:
> Of the 3 criteria (inadequate data, anecdotal evidence, and expert
> judgment), I believe the most valuable is "expert judgment," yet, in
> a study which addresses warfighting software, NOT A SINGLE MEMBER OF
> THE COMMITTEE IS/WAS A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY. In other words, there
> was not one warfighter on a committee which was commissioned to study
> warfighting software. Thus, the "expert judgment" did not include
> the expertise really needed to ensure value in the recommendations.
Not that I disagree with your overall analysis, but I think we need to
be even-handed in our discussion of this report. Although the F-22
program did advocate the continued use of Ada for DoD software, particularly
for critical software, higher-echelon DoD inputs to this study did not.
For example, the USAF presentation was extremely critical of Ada. I didn't
see the Navy presentation first-hand, but I suspect it was also somewhat
negative toward Ada based on other Navy presentations I have seen. Therefore,
I'm not sure that having warfighters on the committee would have helped.
Quite possibly, the results would have tilted even farther from from Ada
if there had been official DoD representatives on the committee.