TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


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
Ken Garlington <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Ken Garlington <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 6 Nov 1996 09:55:27 +0000
text/plain (42 lines)
Ralph E. Crafts wrote:
> Interesting observation.  My point was/is that an experienced member
> of the military would not have condoned eliminating logistics, etc.,
> from the critical warfighting capability list, regardless of the
> language issues.  I think that is still a valid observation.
> I'm curious as to which USAF presentation you refer to--the report lists
> several (Chris Anderson, Phil Babel, Capt. Jules Bartow, Col. Bob Lyons,
> Robert Kent, and a position paper by Ed Feigenbaum, Chief Scientist).
> I know most of these people either personally or by reputation, and I
> figure that Feigenbaum would be the most likely negative speaker, and
> possibly Kent, but the others I would expect to be very positive about
> the language.

I was thinking of Phil Babel's presentation. I just went back and reviewed
the PowerPoint version of his pitch, and the only positive comments (two) in the
entire presentation were from F-22! His conclusion was that there should
be _no_ Ada mandate. I especially enjoyed his backup charts, which all
hinged on the premise that there were no GUI builders for Ada!

Obviously, Chris Anderson supported Ada. As for Col. Lyons, he was a _major_
force in promoting the use of Ada on F-22 (as a matter of fact, when I first
met him, he was a major, period :), and he appears to feel the same way about JSF.
I've met Capt. Bartow a few times, and I know he is also an enthusiastic Ada supporter
for JSF. Unfortunately, I would expect someone from Mr. Babel's shop to represent
USAF, if the services were invited to appoint someone to a committee like this, as
opposed to someone from JSF, F-22, or someone involved with software maintenance.
That's why I suspect direct USAF representation would have been a negative.

> Re the Navy, once I saw that Capt. Katherine Paige was a presenter, I
> knew there was at least one very negative perspective offered, given
> her past published (and very uninformed) comments on Ada.

The way things appear to be going for Ada, I think someone like her would have
represented USN. So, that's two services that would be voting to end the Ada
mandate completely. Still want them on the committee? :)

LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"
For more info, see or