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  March 1997

TEAM-ADA March 1997

Subject:

Re: Ada Mandate

From:

"Boeggeman, Joe (Civ) ~U" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Boeggeman, Joe (Civ) ~U

Date:

Wed, 12 Mar 1997 08:45:28 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (96 lines)

The provisions of PL 101-511, Section 8902 were repeated in several
budget acts through 1993.  After that time, we didn't see any verbiage
in the subsequent appropriations laws.  We determined that the mandate
was unenforceable, since there were no provisions in the federal
acquisition regulations mandating our contractors to do the same.  While
Ada was and is a language of choice, the policy shifted toward technical
solutions at best cost-benefit.  Ada does not always come in a clear
winner in that case.  Where safety and data assurance issues are high,
Ada has always been our first choice.  However, in cases such as small
office automation applications (for which we have many), it was more
cost effective for us to go with Visual Basic/C++ and have cleaner
interfaces with the Windows environment.  Additionally, our start-up
costs were much less.

Regardless of the mandate, a good number of our critical systems are
still written in Ada.  We feel that this trend will continue for the
foreseeable future.  But Ada is a powerful tool in a large toolbox.
Education is the key to using it wisely.

Should there be a mandate?  We've tried before and haven't been very
successful.  I'll play the DoD heretic and say no to any specific
language.  The mandate that should be in place is for good software
engineering processes.  Good cost and size estimations,  risk assessment
and abatement,  use of concrete requirements analysis and design
methodologies, and fulfilling the needs stated in the requirement should
drive the technical solution.

Ada will still be considered first, however, if in the end the
cost-benefit points in another direction......

Cheers,


>----------
>From:  Michael Feldman[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent:  Tuesday, March 11, 1997 9:09 PM
>To:    [log in to unmask]
>Subject:       Re: Ada Mandate
>
>> To: List
>>
>> In this discussion of the abrogation of long-standing Ada policy,
>> I have seen no reference to Public Law 101-511, Section 8092, which
>> makes Ada the preferred programming language for the DoD.  Has this
>> law been repealed?  It is my understanding that once a law is passed
>> and ratified, it remains the law unless it has an explicit expiration
>> date (this one does not) or it has been repealed.
>>
>> Richard Riehle
>>
>
>As I recall, this came up a while back. The _legal_ "mandate" (As
>opposed to just DoD internal policy) appeared in an _appropriation_
>law, at the end of the law in what is normally a section of general
>provisions. Generally - in the absence of language to the contrary
>- these things run for the duration of the fiscal year (FY) covered by
>the law.
>
>For the uninitiated, an _appropriation_ law (which, under the
>Constitution, must originate in the House) specifies the funds that
>are to be spent by an agency, for each of the agency's programs that
>have been authorized by an _authorization_ law (which can originate in the
>House or the Senate). In theory, general policy is stated in
>_authorizations_,
>but Congress is not bound by that principle, and often slips general
>policy provisions into appropriations. (Anti-abortion language, for example,
>is a controversial well-known case of this.)
>
>Indeed, one often finds quite strange and wondrous things
>(unrelated and previously unauthorized pork, say) slipped into
>appropriations laws in the middle of the night right at the end of
>the FY when Congress is rushing to pass the stuff that keeps our
>money flowing to government programs.
>
>If memory serves, the first Ada clause appeared in the Oct. 1990 law,
>covering Oct. 90 - Sept. 91. But the clause was repeated at least once,
>maybe twice, more in subsequent years. This lends strength to the idea
>that Congress intends these things to cover one fiscal year at a time
>(else why bother to repeat it).
>
>I've just checked this general structure with a friend, who asserts
>that this should not be taken as official legal advice:-) but knows,
>generally, about legislative interpretation. My source - who knows
>little or nothing about DoD-specific stuff - said it's a pretty
>safe bet that the _legal_ policy disappeared whenever the language
>disappeared from the appropriation law. A safe bet, but not a sure thing.
>
>I'm no lawyer, and my friend was just giving an off-the-cuff opinion
>based on general experience with the wonders of Congress.
>If anyone on the list is _really_ concerned, they'd best dig out
>the actual laws and consult someone who can give an authoritative
>view.
>
>Mike Feldman
>

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