TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML 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]>
X-To:
"Brashear, Phil" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 1 Jun 2000 14:20:05 -0700
Reply-To:
AdaWorks <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
AdaWorks <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
MIME-Version:
1.0
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (16 lines)
On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Brashear, Phil wrote:

> Unfortunately, it no longer seems to be the case that customers (DoD or
> otherwise) insist on validation of their Ada compilers either, so maybe they
> are applying "the same standard" to C++.

That is really sad.  I wonder if the DoD has any idea of the risks
it is taking with its software decisions.  Is everyone so overwhelmed
by economic considerations that the concerns of national defense
have been preempted by shortcuts?  Are we seeing a phenomenon that
corresponds to fast-food and younger whiskey in defense policy?  Have
our decision-makers had their minds so polluted by TV sitcoms that
they cannot see beyond the next thirty minute commercial?

Richard Riehle

ATOM RSS1 RSS2