TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Sun, 6 Sep 1998 15:08:20 -0700
"Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." <[log in to unmask]>
"Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
text/plain (48 lines)
To: Tom Moran et al.
From: Bob Leif

Since there has been a request for comments, I will express my view. The
real truth is that virtually all branches of Government and the vast
majority of consultants will tailor their reports and recommendations to the
desires of the entity paying the bills. The problem is NOT the removal of
the mandate. It is the lack of adherence to good manufacturing practices by
the Department of Defense (DoD) concerning choice of compilers. The DoD
apparently does not have a complete separation between the group responsible
for purchasing a product and the group which monitors purchases for adhering
to standards.

The lack of solid data comparing the lifecycle costs of different
programming languages is an intolerable disgrace. Compilers are
manufacturing tools and should be treated as such.  The year 2000 problem
has, at least, provided anecdotal data that Ada has and was an excellent
choice. So far, the only example I have heard of was that I have been told
that one vendor's Ada '83 library has a year 2K problem.

ISO provides guidelines for contracting out software. The Congress should
require that prior to purchasing more than one million dollars of software,
the Government office involved should be audited by an outside organization
and certified to follow the appropriate ISO standards. All software listed
by GSA should be required to have a CE mark and adhere to US Government
standards or have been subjected to a real waver process.

Parenthetically, the US Government's procurement practices and the
managerial and technological incompetence of Microsoft's competitors have
done more to establish the Microsoft's "monopoly" than the Justice
Department's questioned efforts of Microsoft.  The US Government's
purchasing rules are a far stronger and a much more accurate weapon to
control Microsoft than an army of Justice Department lawyers. The simplest
way for the Government to control Microsoft is to require standardized
bindings such as POSIX and the bindings to the hardware vendors' part of
device drivers be made public.

-----Original Message-----
From:   Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Thomas W Moran
Sent:   Thursday, September 03, 1998 5:13 PM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Ada Letters article re DOD report

My recent copy of Ada Letters contained an article saying that much
of the DOD report was ignored - excepting the dropping of the "mandate".
But I've heard not a peep here about that article.  No comments?