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
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Stanley Levine <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 20 Mar 1997 12:57:18 -0500
X-cc:
X-To:
Reply-To:
Stanley Levine <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (114 lines)
 Bob, I hate to disagree with you. However, it is NOT our job to question the
 decision that was made. Mr. Paige has made a decision that is within the
 power of the office that he holds! It is our job to implement it in a way
 that most effectively helps our system developers. We need to focus on
 process and not language! I happen to be a strong supporter of what Ada
 brings to the table and have managed large Ada projects and have even held
 office within ACM SIGAda organizations. I have been watching these e-mails
 float around while accomplishing little. We need to get on with it and start
 implementing good procedures for Govt and contractors. We need to take the
 concepts that Ada brings with it and migrate them into our process for use
 with all languages. It would be nice if you were able to help set up some
 special workshops/discussion groups etc. at the STC in April!

                                Stan Levine


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Reason for Mr. Paige's Decision Unclear  -Reply
Author:  Robert Hanrahan <[log in to unmask]> at Internet_Gateway
Date:    3/20/97 6:50 AM


Hal,
     Is there a brief synopsis of the Paige study that shows the ratiaonale
for Paige's position?   Could it be emailed to me.... no rush.
     Thanks.
Robert (Bob) P. Hanrahan, CCP
AF STSC Process/SEE/AI Technology Domains Projects Leader (Jack of
all trades, master of none).

>>> Hal Hart <[log in to unmask]> 03/12/97 11:34am >>>
From: "Paige, Emmett Jr., , OSD/C3I +" <[log in to unmask]>
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.
> ----------

>I THINK ADA WILL COMPETE BETTER WITHOUT THE MANDATE.


MR. PAIGE: I believe you when you say you believe removing the Ada
mandate can be good for both (1) the DoD and (2) Ada.  As I said
before, my own personal sentiments have been the same.  I am also very
sympathetic to the general notion that the Government should minimize
telling us contractors "HOW" to do our business, which I know is a
context of acquisition reform into which dropping the Ada mandate fits.

However, we both have to realize that the NRC Committee DISAGREED
with
us on point (1)  --  about the DoD's good.

The data the NRC Committee gathered added up to SUBSTANTIAL
ADVANTAGES
from using Ada for high reliability, long-lifecycle evolvability,
etc. systems (which many feel describes more than just the DoD's
"warfighting" domain).

Couple that with the clear evidence of LOW PROSPECTS that other
mature
or emerging languages have any prospect of closing the
high-reliability gap (even ignoring limiting the selection to
STANDARDIZED languages, which most of Ada's rivals are not).

Based on these findings, the NRC Committee apparently felt DoD's
overall interests would suffer if any language other than Ada is used
for this class of DoD applications in the near/mid-term future.
Enough so to justify continuing to tell contractors "How" to do this
aspect of business in this narrowed business domain.


Oh well, now we put all of DoD's eggs in the Software Engineering Plan
Review (SEPR) process if we think there's still a "Software Crisis"
that needs solving.  The SEPR process will actually be very good if it
comes online right, much better than the Ada mandate alone!  But we'll
never know if the SEPR  *PLUS*  Ada-for-warfighting would have been
better than either alone for the DoD going into the 21st century.

    -- Hal



Received: from cecom3.monmouth.army.mil (134.80.0.2) by doim6.monmouth.army.mil
with SMTP
  (IMA Internet Exchange 2.1 (Gold Candidate) Enterprise) id 00083478; Thu, 20
Mar 97 09:50:13 -0500
Received: from [199.75.54.2] by cecom3.monmouth.army.mil id aa06303; 20 Mar 97
9:48 EST
Received: from HILLWPOS.HILL.AF.MIL by sw-eng.falls-church.va.us (8.7.1/)
        id OAA03894; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 14:31:40 GMT
Received: from HILL-EMH-Message_Server by HILLWPOS.HILL.AF.MIL
        with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 06:54:43 -0700
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 06:50:26 -0700
From: Robert Hanrahan <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
    [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
    [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
    [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
    [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
    [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
    [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
    [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
    [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
    [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
    [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
    [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Reason for Mr. Paige's Decision Unclear  -Reply

ATOM RSS1 RSS2