> 4. 15M to be spent on Ada. This was considered an "on the margin"
> expenditure. I did not hear what the 15M would provide. It's almost as
> though 15M was thrown over the wall to coddle the community.
The full report identifies a proposed spending profile:
$11.5 million/year for contracts:
$1.5M: Education contracts for Ada and software engineering curriculum
development, approximately 20 awards at $75k
$1.0M: API binding development and maintenance, approx. 5 at $200K
$0.6M: Support for experts involved in language maintenance and
enhancement (e.g. WG9, the ARG, the HRG, ...), approx 15 experts
at $40K/year support
$0.4M: Maintenance and enhancement of validation suites, 2 at $200K
$3.0M: Academic/Research-oriented efforts to research Ada technology
in support of DoD mission, 15 at $200K
$5.0M: Industry/Development-oriented efforts to develop Ada technology
in support of DoD mission, 20 at $250K
$3.5 million/year for centralized support organization (e.g. AJPO):
$0.5M: Monitor policy compliance, identify gaps in technology
hindering compliance, identify remedies to enhance compliance
$1.0M: Information clearinghouse and web-site
$1.0M: DoD-oriented education and training materials development,
Ada 83/Ada 95 transition support and tools, and technology insertion
$1.0M: Metrics on programming language usage, cost-effectiveness,
performance, defect rates; collection, analysis, and dispersal
of this information.
> ... I applaud
> those who came up with this figure. And to think that after all this,
> 15M could have made *any* difference in providing warfighting software in
> a budget that consists of orders of magnitude more.
A steady $15M a year investment is not trivial, when focused on general
Ada-oriented technology and tools. Application-specific technology
investments remain the responsibility of individual application areas.
> Bruce Bachus
> LTC, Infantry
> [rest snipped]
-Tucker Taft [log in to unmask]