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:

Sy Wong's suggestion

From:

Bob Mathis <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Bob Mathis <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 17 Nov 1996 16:50:28 EST

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (173 lines)

Sy Wong,

At the end of this message is the main content of Jim Moore's reply to Sy's
original message. The only reason I knew about the suggestion and the request
for a formal reply was because of Jim's copy to me. Jim also copied the message
to John Goodenough, the long standing head of the US delegation to WG9. It is
now also my official reply.

When WG9 first began, there might have been some confusion about US government
funding and the activities of WG9, but things have radically changed. There have
been some few participants in WG9 activities who receive government funds (not
just US) for work related to their participation, but, as far as I know, this
has been relatively free from attempts to direct and control WG9.

Even in the Ada9X project, where there was US government funding and normal
contract monitoring, this was not the responsibility of WG9 and many members of
WG9 and their companies contributed their own time and expenses.

Jim Moore is absolutely correct in saying that items for the agenda of WG9 arise
from the inputs of national member bodies (and other administrative ways through
the ISO hierarchy, of course). Let me go on to say, the resources of WG9 and its
members are very limited. New work would not be considered without considerable
advance preparation and assurance of resources.

If you want government funds to be spent on some project, there have been
numerous proposal opportunities. The most recent having been the ATIP-P program
where proposers were encouraged (required I think) to propose commercialization
and productization of their results. That program received considerable advance
publicity through the efforts of Don Reifer, Chuck Engle, their staffs, and even
some of my mail to the ARA and Team Ada lists.

Sy, your ideas are aimed at the commercial market place. I think that's
wonderful. I wish more people were thinking that way. But you don't accomplish
what you're trying to do by going to the government or some other organization
and asking them to do it for you. Ideas have to make it in the market place just
like products do.

Things come onto the agenda of WG9 through national body contributions and other
ISO mechanisms; but to be put on the program of work they have to be agreed to
by at least five member bodies who are committed to working on the project. Most
of the members will be looking at the commercial implications of their
decisions.

To respond to some other points. Validation is not controlled by WG9. We have
never reviewed the tests or commented on their coverage. When commentaries are
considered, we try to explain their impact on particular validation tests,
implementations or applications; but that's only to assess the situation and the
impact of a decision. Performance tests have been developed by government
agencies (US and UK primarily), but there have been very significant
contributions from SIGAda in this area. Testing requirements of using
organizations has not been a topic for WG9.

You characterizations of SIGAda are unfair. The members of SIGAda represent the
Ada community very well. The individual participants in WG9 are probably all
members of SIGAda and many of them have been leaders of SIGAda activities. Most
WG9 activities have been paralleled by groups in SIGAda, AdaEurope, or both.
This has been one of the strengths of the Ada community.

Another thing to remember is that the DoD is not an economic development agency.
Their responsibility is the defense of the United States. Clearly economic
strength and industrial development are related to the overall strength and
defense of the country, but DoD is frequently reminded of its appropriate and
inappropriate roles. If there is some DoD action you disagree with (and Ada
policy is only one of the possibilities), it only puts you in with the majority
of the US population.

You also question the background on the members of the recent NRC study group.
There is no doubt in my mind about their individual and collective knowledge of
programming languages. I don't think we could have had a more Ada friendly
panel. I have concerns about their conclusions, but those have to be countered
in a positive way.

Over the years I have encouraged many people to grow their ideas into products,
but I don't want to encourage anyone to do something where I have doubts about
the outcome. Overcoming those doubts requires many factors (for example,
clarifying the goals, assembling the right team, and planning a believable path
to a desirable outcome). At the moment I don't see those components in place, so
I don't want to encourage people to do what I think would be a waste of time.
Complaining about that view wouldn't do any good. Only successful actions will
prove me wrong.

I think Mike Feldman made a very nice point-by-point reply.

Again, ideas have to be sold just as products do. If nobody wants to buy into an
idea, maybe you need a different sales approach.

-- Bob Mathis


------  Jim Moores reply to Sy Wong  ------

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9 is an international standards committee operating
under the rules prescribes by JTC1.  The members of the committee are
national bodies which select delegations to attend the meeting and which
formulate national positions to be represented by those delegations.
Decision-making is accomplished by voting with each national delegation
having one vote.

It seems clear to me that proposals that arrive on the floor with no
prior consideration by national bodies have no chance of success.  The
national delegations would have no instructions on how to treat the
proposal.  I don't plan to entertain such proposals because they would
consume valuable time for no point.

If you wish your ideas to be considered by WG9, then you should attempt
to have them incorporated into the positions of one or more national
delegations.  As I mentioned before, John Goodenough is the head of
delegation for the United States.

Regards, Jim Moore

------  Sy Wongs message  ------

>To: Jim Moore, ACM Techn. Stds Comm. Chair <[log in to unmask]> 1996.11.2
>
>Please voice my petition to have the following matter put on the agenda
>for discussion.
>
>Subject: Ada-95 Annex-H for Safety and Security Software (SSS).
>
>Purpose. To extend Ada use to the commercial sector
>where nobody touches Ada or mentions Ada, particular in the areas of
>  a. SSS
>  b. the Electronic Design Automation and
>  c. hard real-time embedded applications.
>
>What follows applies only to the commercial sector which, unlike the
>military market the Ada vendor depends on, it is a competitive
>environment where any drag on economy cannot be tolerated.
>
>Annex-H listed a number of "restrictables" for the purpose to
facilitate
>proof of correctness of SSS, with apologies in the Rationale that it is

>not subsetting because Ada compiler must be validated for the entire
>language anyhow.  This is a faulty reasoning that ignored the
competitive
>issue with supports for other languages.  Logic do not prevail for a
>vendor that only caters to the SSS market to develope a compiler for
full
>Ada-95 solely to get validation and then make sure that the customer
>cannot use the restricted constructs.  The other two listed application
>areas have similar requirements for the SSS sector where Annex-H
>restricted compiler can have a market.  In particular, in the EDA
market,
>this subset can serve both as Hardware Design/Description Language
(HDL)
>in addition to programming and can be used as hw/sw Co-Design Language
>(CDL).
>
>It is requested that the following measures be taken.
>
>1. Write a clarification for Annex H, not couching subsetting in terms
of
>"restrictable" type wordings.
>
>2. Edit the LRM accordingly to remove all restricted constructs or
>mention of them plus possibly a manual for learning purposes.
>
>3. Separate the ACVC into "must have" and "must not have" parts,
possibly
>offer validation service in S.U. for Annex-H restricted compilers,
since
>the U.S. resists any attempt that subsets Ada.
>
>4. Possibly edit ASIS after the above are in place.
>
>An official response is requested.
>
>SY Wong
>
>

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