TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
David Shochat <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 5 Nov 1996 12:46:07 -0800
text/plain (26 lines)
Tucker Taft wrote:
>

[snip]

>  The committee felt that in the high-assurance,
> real-time domain, Ada already leads the way, and using Ada had
> compelling business and techical advantages for the DoD.
> However in other domains, where the commercial investment outside the
> DoD dwarfs the DoD's own investments, we felt that the business case for
> using Ada was not as clear cut, and the use of Ada should not be
> considered a prerequisite in the choice of contractor and development
> approach.

What about mission planning, command & control, intel, and theater
battle management? These are areas which certainly would have been
described as "war-fighting" before the NRC report came out (but may be
re-defined soon in order to avoid a term now Ada-tainted), are not
necessarily "high assurance, real-time" -- certainly not embedded -- and
do use graphical user interfaces (usually X currently), and commercial
database management systems. Some of us have been working to show how
successful Ada 95 can be in these areas. I'm kind of wondering if a rug
is being pulled out from under us, or whether the committee intended
that this be in the "war-fighting" category.
-- David

ATOM RSS1 RSS2