TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Chad Bremmon <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Chad Bremmon <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 10 Mar 1997 09:13:50 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
I disagree.  While Ada may be good for DoD, that does not mean that an Ada
mandate is good for DoD.

Chad

----------
> From: Hal Hart <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: FORW: Reply from Mr. Paige
> Date: Monday, March 10, 1997 3:41 AM
>
> He dropped all other addresses from this reply (below)to my Friday
> msg titled "Reason for Mr. Paige's Decision Unclear."  I think it is
> important to circulate his very clear double negative in his last
> sentence -- opponents of Ada will want to interpret his recent
> decision as the opposite (i.e., that he has given up on Ada as of
> value to the DoD).
>                                         -- hh
> -------Forwarded Message
> From: "Paige, Emmett Jr., , OSD/C3I +" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: Hal Hart <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: RE: Reason for Mr. Paige's Decision Unclear
> Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 23:17:00 -0500
>
> THANKS
> I GOT A LOT OF INPUT AND DISCUSSION BUT THE BUCK HAS TO STOP HERE.I DID
> WHAT I BELIEVE IS BEST FOR DOD AND HAVE NOT SAID NOR IMPLIED THAT ADA IS
> NOT GOOD FOR DOD.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2