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  February 1997

TEAM-ADA February 1997

Subject:

NRC Ada Study, Charts, & Status

From:

"Hal Hart - ACM SIGAda Chair (Hal Hart)" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Hal Hart <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 24 Feb 1997 13:41:50 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (107 lines)

Since Barry Boehm's LA SIGAda presentation a week ago on the National
Academy of Science's National Research Council's study on Ada usage
for the DoD [top 4 summary recommendations copied at end of this msg],
I have received several requests for (1) the presentation charts, (2)
the full study, and (3) status of DoD's acceptance or rejection of the
recommendations.  After tracking down some changed URL's, I can answer
(1) & (2), and I'll tell you what I've heard on (3).

(1) PUBLIC PRESENTATION CHARTS on the NRC Ada STUDY:  are available
    on the AdaIC website in both online-viewable HTML structure and
    downloadable PowerPoint file (150K bytes):
        http://sw-eng.falls-church.va.us/AdaIC/docs/present/nrc/
    These are basically the same charts Barry presented at Tri-Ada'96
    in December.  There are 54 slides in the PPT file.

    If you & those close to you do not have access to the web, you may
    call my secretary Patty Shipp (310/764-3011) who can send you a 2-up
    double-sided copy of essentially the same charts.

(2) THE FULL STUDY: can be ordered ($29) online from the National Academy
    Press, and the same website says it will be uploaded to be obtainable
    & viewable online in the (very near?) future:
        http://www.nap.edu/bookstore/enter2.cgi?0309055970

    I still do not have a copy of the full report myself, so I can
    not answer specific questions beyond what was covered in the
    presentation & accompanying Q/A.  I do know that the full report
    contains much information (including the study group's definition
    of "warfighting"), background, and rationale going far beyond the
    presentation charts, so those needing in-depth information &
    justifications should get the full report.

(3) STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS: No action has been taken at present by the DoD.

    Please realize that I am in no way an official voice for anyone, but
    I have recently heard two sources close to the action provide
    significantly diverging ESTIMATES as to when the DoD will act
    upon the recommendations.  The two "guesses" were:
        (a) Asst. SecDef C3I Emmitt Paige will enact a policy change before
            he leaves office, which could be within a month or two.
            (He has submitted his retirement, effective when a successor
            is appointed, and I think no nomination has been made yet.)
        (b) It might be more than 6 months before the DoD decides what
            to do, and perhaps this will be hot news at Tri-Ada'97 in Nov.

    "Officially," the old policy remains in effect until new policy is
    coordinated by the Services.  In practice, the perception of a
    forthcoming narrowed Ada policy will probably increase the resistance
    to using Ada where there is already resistance, especially for
    application domains that are very clearly outside the "warfighting"
    scope which is the recommended new policy for Ada applicability.
    Even after high-ranking officials decide what policy change(s) they
    want to make, if any, it is a multi-month process to coordinate
    reviews and signatures throughout the DoD; thus, even if Mr. Paige
    drives a decision to accept the recommendations, new policy would
    probably not become promulgated until after his departure.

    I understand that earlier reports that the Ada Joint Program Office
    would be moved from DISA to OSD were premature:  A change is being
    considered (including a name change), but no decision has been made.

    In fact, it is still possible that the DoD response will be to
    DROP Ada altogether.  (See recommendation #3 below.)  Of course
    we hope not and do not anticipate this response, but it is still
    possible.  I presume we will get wind of this mega-recommendation's
    fate long before policy is signed out.

    My personal opinion is that recommendation #4 (for a Software
    Engineering Plan Review) will eventually become the most important
    legacy of this study, if the recommendations are adopted; it is even
    possible that if the Ada requirement is dropped altogether, #4 will
    be accepted (sooner or later).  This recommendation is much bigger
    than the Ada issue  --  note that full title of the study is
    "Ada and BEYOND:  Software Policies for the Department of Defense."
    Many of us hope and believe that Ada is a good fit w/ architecture,
    reuse, and evolvability/maintenance etc. considerations for many
    kinds of systems, and that this will be perceived during SEPRs.
    I believe that if SEPRs are done totally & objectively,
    Ada will be the chosen programming language a healthy share of the
    time, and C or C++ will also be chosen often  --  HOWEVER, I also
    believe these criteria for fit in an integrated review of software
    technologies will turn out to be somewhat different than the
    "warfighting domain" criterion.  With a legacy of a minimum 50M Ada
    SLOC deployed in current systems (out of approx. 130M SLOC total
    all PLs in what was admittedly a partial survey done by IDA reported in
    the NRC study), an SEPR for major system upgrades should often find
    Ada the most effective choice for evolutions or spin-offs of systems
    currently implemented in Ada  --  warfighting or not.

That's what I know and what I think today.

        -- Hal

========snip====snip====snip====snip====snip====snip====snip====snip====

ABSTRACT: In 1996, the Department of Defense asked the National
Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct
a study concerning the continued viability of using Ada.  The study
committee's recent report provides interesting, controversial, and
mixed findings.  Its recommendations (which are intended to be only
for the DoD) can be distilled into four major points:
(1)  Use Ada for warfighting software.
(2)  Drop the requirement for Ada for all other software.
(3)  Invest $15 million/year in Ada infrastructure or drop Ada altogether.
(4)  Integrate the Ada decision process into an overall Software
     Engineering Plan Review (SEPR) process.

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