The official DoD answer to my query about whether Assistant Secretary
of Defense (C3I) Emmett Paige's April 29 MEMORANDUM has the effect of
changing programming language policy immediately is "YES." [See next
msg below.] Effective immediately, Ada waivers are no longer
required. The AF has already issued its own implementation order for
this memo, and the other services may have also.
The 2nd enclosure below contains ASCII of Mr. Paige's April 29 memo in
case you have not seen it.
Finally, I remind everyone that Mr. Paige has repeatedly stated that
this Memorandum is not to be interpreted as the DoD "giving up" on Ada
or as a license to abandon Ada frivilously. (After all, he accepted
the recommendation to increase the DoD's infrastructure support for
Ada back up to $15M/hr). He states his personal belief that Ada will
henceforth fare better without the mandate. (See 3rd enclosure
below.) Conscientious implementation of the statement in the Memo
that "programming language selections should be made in the context of
the system and software engineering factors that influence overall
life-cycle costs, risks, and potential for interoperability" with the
7 factors bulleted there will favor Ada where it should be used.
(This is effectively what last Fall's NRC report called the integrated
"Software Engineering Plan Review" milestone.)
------- Forwarded Message 1
From: "Brown, Linda, , OSD/C3I" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Hart, Hal" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: "'Hamilton, Drew LTC - Ada Joint Program Office Chief'"
<[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Weight of April-29 Paige Memo?
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 14:28:00 -0400
Since policy issuance and interpretation is a function of the Office of
the Secretary of Defense rather than the Ada Joint Program Office, let
me just jump into answering this rather than waiting for Drew to send it
DoDD 3405.2 was canceled on Feb 23, 1991 -- it has not been in effect
since that time. It was replaced with DoD Instruction 5000.2 which was
subsequently replaced with the current version of DoD Regulation 5000.2.
The impact of Mr Paige's April 29 memorandum, "Use of the Ada
Programming Language," is to eliminate the Ada requirement contained in
DoDD 3405.1 in favor of programming language selections made in the
context of system/software engineering analyses, and to eliminate the
associated requirement for waiver submission. The direction was
effective when signed.
As you noted it can take months to revise, coordinate, and sign out
Directives, so memoranda are often used as interim steps to immediately
modify policy, pending those formal steps. Such intent is indicated in
the first paragraph of the memo.
------- Enclosure 2
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
6000 DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-6000
April 29, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS
CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
UNDER SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE
DIRECTOR, DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING
ASSISTANT SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
ASSISTANTS TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION
DIRECTORS OF THE DEFENSE AGENCIES
DIRECTORS OF THE DOD FIELD ACTIVITIES
SUBJECT: Use of the Ada Programming Language
Last year, I asked the National Academy of Sciences'
National Research Council Computer Science and Telecommunications
Board to study the Department of Defense (DoD) software policies.
After carefully reviewing and considering the Board's final
report, I have directed my staff to undertake the necessary
actions to revise the policy contained in DoD Directive 3405.1,
"Computer Programming Language Policy," to eliminate the
mandatory requirement for use of the Ada programming language in
favor of an engineering approach to selection of the language to
be used. Additionally, DoD 5000.2-R, "Mandatory Procedures for
Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) and Major Automated
Information System (MAIS) Acquisition Programs," will be revised
consistent with those changes.
In the interim, pending formal coordination of the necessary
revisions, programming language selections should be made in the
context of the system and software engineering factors that
influence overall life-cycle costs, risks, and potential for
interoperability. As appropriate, these selections may be
reviewed during milestone/system approval processes. Among the
factors that should be considered and appropriately documented in
the decision process are:
* system/software requirements, including performance,
interoperability, reliability, safety, and security
* system/software architecture, including partitioning into
* extent of compliance with/incorporation of other related
direction (e.g., use of standards such as the Joint
Technical Architecture, open systems, and commercial-off-
the-shelf software) and the impact thereof;
* selection of software development and support
methodologies and processes;
* use of software development and support tools and
* long-term maintenance implications, including
evolvability and supportability; and
* integration of software issues and decisions with other
planning considerations to include cost, schedule,
acquisition strategy and staffing.
Ada should be one of the languages considered in this
decision process; however, Ada waiver requests are no longer
required when another language is selected.
My point of contact for this action is Ms. Linda Brown,
who is assigned to my Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Command, Control and Communications, (703) 604-1590,
e-mail: [log in to unmask], or Mr. Samuel Worthington,
Emmett Paige, Jr.
------- Enclosure 3
From: "Paige, Emmett Jr., , OSD/C3I +" <[log in to unmask]>
To: Hal Hart <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 23:17:00 -0500
>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.
>I THINK ADA WILL COMPETE BETTER WITHOUT THE MANDATE.
------- End of Forwarded Messages