LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA Archives

TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA  November 1996

TEAM-ADA November 1996

Subject:

Re: NRC Report

From:

Michael Feldman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Michael Feldman <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 5 Nov 1996 23:32:14 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (99 lines)

> > ...
> > the tone of the report is such as to _discourage_ use of Ada outside
> > the required domain. I'm surprised it wasn't more nuanced. This report
> > has got to contribute to a negative spiral, virtually _guaranteeing_
> > that Ada has virtually no chance of commercial success.
>
> I don't buy that.  The reputation of Ada is clearly on the upswing,
> thanks to GNAT and Ada 95 and team-ada.  This upswing has nothing to
> do with the vagueries and confusion of the US DoD Ada policy.

This is true, but your answer does not speak to the negative tone of
much of the report and its possible impact on the industry, After
all, this report was eagerly awaited and produced by a committee
that was well-balanced and independent. I was quite surprised at
a few rather extreme statements in the report like "virtually no chance
that Ada will be commercially successful." A statement that unequivocal,
given the lemming effect on this industry, could be a self-fulfilling
prophecy.

The quoted phrase above was a commentary on the overall industry,
not just on DoD. Why, in your opinion, Tuck, is it so negative?
It's almost gratuitously so.

> We always knew that at some point the DoD was going to move away
> from mandates as part of its move toward commercially oriented contracting.
> It was only a matter of time.

Certainly, but that doesn;t mean the committee had to put such a strong
imprimatur on it.

> This may be the time Ada has been awaiting, to finally wean itself from the
> US DoD, and prove itself on its own merits.  I firmly believe that it
> will be easier to operate in the Ada market if this report has the effect
> of reducing some of the uncertainty about the DoD Ada policy, even if
> the uncertainty is resolved in terms of narrowing the scope of the
> mandate.

I share your hopefulness. OTOH, I'm not so sure that burying the language
issues in those Software Engineering Review Boards (did anyone look
at the acronym - SERBs?) is such a great idea. Inasmuch as the language
issue will now have much less visibility, it could be speculated that
even in the warfighting area, the so-called "mandate" could be weakened.

This is even more worrisome because the report put such a _weak_
imprimatur on Ada's real technical superiority, _as shown by its
success in warfighting-like domains_. I was quite surprised by the
weak case the report put forward on this, and rather downhearted
at the way everyone ducked my questions on it.

Tony Wasserman's flip "yes, we discovered the AdaBelgium home page"
really denigrated all the Success Stories. Did the committee delve
into the facts behind those stories? Tony's "some of them were not
all that successful" remark really makes me wonder. Are some of
those stories exaggerated? Which ones?

I have an uneasy feeling the committee did not have - or did not take -
the time to go much deeper into Ada's successes than the home page blurbs.
>
> > Two serious - not sarcastic - questions for Tucker:
> >
> > Do you seriously think the Ada companies - with the possible exception
> > of ACT - will do very much to press the case for Ada in non-warfighting
> > applications?
>
> Yes, I'm sure they all realize that the growth market for Ada is
> outside the US DoD, and the committee's report certainly hasn't
> changed that.

But are they really committed to Ada's growth? Some of the companies
hide this commitment rather well, at least to judge from _their_
home pages.:-)
>
> > What do you think the chances are of the Ada industry making much investment
> > in non-warfighting application support, in or out of DoD?
>
> My presumption is that much of the investment will be in the
> non-warfighting market.  Thomson has always put a lot of attention on the
> commercial market, particularly through their Windows-based products.

I hope that won;t disappear, given

(1) the committee essentially stating that DoD shouldn;t be using
    Ada in that domain (I know, I know, the committee said shouldn;t
    _require_, but we know how that will be taken...) and

(2) the Thomson merger with IDE, whose commitment to Ada has been
    (as far as I can tell) nearly invisible within DoD and entirely
    invisible outside.

    That's the same Tony Wasserman...
>
> > > > -- David
> > >
> > Mike Feldman
>
> -Tucker Taft  [log in to unmask]
>
Mike Feldman (again)

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager