they seem to be pushing this much more than the ada mandate. i work
with a comany that has been forced to go to this and jmtk, and it
really SUCKS! they had to rip out a huge amount of working code,
that looked and worked well and replace it with buggy libraries and
truly ugly user interfaces. its unfortunate but it seems to be the
nature of the beast.
At 3:31 PM -0600 4/6/00, Carlisle, Martin, Dr, DFCS wrote:
>The DII COE is the Defense departments "Common Operating Environment". Each
>of the 3 services (Army, Navy/Marines, Air Force) was doing software
>acquisition in a vacuum, making it hard for the 3 services to have their
>computers talk to each other and participate in joint operations. To remedy
>this, the COE is supposed to severely limit the platforms you can use for
>development. It specifies things like, what operating system can I use,
>what programming languages can I use, and in theory provides a large library
>of reusable code, common installations, etc. It has a friend called the
>"Joint Technical Architecture", which specifies web browsers, web
>development software, office applications, etc.
>In my opinion (note strongly I am exercising my academic freedom here, and
>not speaking on behalf of the Air Force Academy, US Air Force, or DoD), this
>will be almost as successful as the Ada mandate. The COE has Windows and
>Unix and all sorts of things that could never really get along anyway.
>Nonetheless, I do think it is important to remedy this blatant error in
>their document, which will undoubtedly be used by non-technical bureaucrats
>to make all sorts of decisions that should be technically done.
>From: Tom Moran [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 3:16 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: DII COE bars Ada -> Java compilation
> For those of us in the civilian sector, who or what is "DII COE"
>and what is the significance of this?
> As pointed out, using the Java language, as opposed to any other,
>does not prevent intentional security attacks. One could argue
>that using the Java language, as opposed to Ada, makes unintentional
>problems *more* likely.
> I would think the author has shown himself, very publicly,
>incompetent at his current job, and should be transferred elsewhere.
> (Assume 50 years ago someone directed "Submarines shall not use
>nuclear reactors because they need lead shielding, which is heavy
>and will prevent rapid surfacing in case of emergency."
>Would GE & Westinghouse & Adm Rickover have accepted such a
>ruling, merely grumbling to themselves?)
If you wish to strive for peace of soul then believe;
if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche