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:
Michael Feldman <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 6 Nov 1996 12:31:53 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]> from "Tucker Taft" at Nov 6, 96 09:26:58 am
X-To:
Reply-To:
Michael Feldman <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
>
> > ...
> > 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.
>
[Tuck's details snipped]
>
> > ... 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.

At the briefing, I asked - twice, I think - for a rough estimate of the
total warfighting software expenditure in an average year. Just a
ballpark, so we could get some notion of the percentage that $15M
represents. The panelists ducked the question. Why? Did the committee
not know? Is the rough estimate classified?

Mike Feldman

ATOM RSS1 RSS2