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
X-cc:
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"Ralph E. Crafts" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 6 Nov 1996 06:18:47 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]> from "Ken Garlington" at Nov 5, 96 02:20:14 pm
X-To:
Ken Garlington <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:
"Ralph E. Crafts" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (57 lines)
>
> Ralph E. Crafts wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Of the 3 criteria (inadequate data, anecdotal evidence, and expert
> > judgment), I believe the most valuable is "expert judgment," yet, in
> > a study which addresses warfighting software, NOT A SINGLE MEMBER OF
> > THE COMMITTEE IS/WAS A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY.  In other words, there
> > was not one warfighter on a committee which was commissioned to study
> > warfighting software.  Thus, the "expert judgment" did not include
> > the expertise really needed to ensure value in the recommendations.
>
> Not that I disagree with your overall analysis, but I think we need to
> be even-handed in our discussion of this report. Although the F-22
> program did advocate the continued use of Ada for DoD software, particularly
> for critical software, higher-echelon DoD inputs to this study did not.
> For example, the USAF presentation was extremely critical of Ada. I didn't
> see the Navy presentation first-hand, but I suspect it was also somewhat
> negative toward Ada based on other Navy presentations I have seen. Therefore,
> I'm not sure that having warfighters on the committee would have helped.
> Quite possibly, the results would have tilted even farther from from Ada
> if there had been official DoD representatives on the committee.
>
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.

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.

Thanks for the feedback.

--Ralph Crafts



--

     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Ralph E. Crafts, Vice President            Voice:  703-359-9709
     Sales & Marketing                          FAX:    703-359-8161
     OC Systems, Inc.                           E-mail:  [log in to unmask]
     9990 Lee Highway                                   [log in to unmask]
     Suite 270                                    http://www.ocsystems.com
     Fairfax, VA  22030

ATOM RSS1 RSS2