> the tone of the report is such as to _discourage_ use of Ada outside
> the required domain. I'm surprised it wasn't more nuanced. This report
> has got to contribute to a negative spiral, virtually _guaranteeing_
> that Ada has virtually no chance of commercial success.
I don't buy that. The reputation of Ada is clearly on the upswing,
thanks to GNAT and Ada 95 and team-ada. This upswing has nothing to
do with the vagueries and confusion of the US DoD Ada policy.
We always knew that at some point the DoD was going to move away
from mandates as part of its move toward commercially oriented contracting.
It was only a matter of time.
This may be the time Ada has been awaiting, to finally wean itself from the
US DoD, and prove itself on its own merits. I firmly believe that it
will be easier to operate in the Ada market if this report has the effect
of reducing some of the uncertainty about the DoD Ada policy, even if
the uncertainty is resolved in terms of narrowing the scope of the
> Two serious - not sarcastic - questions for Tucker:
> Do you seriously think the Ada companies - with the possible exception
> of ACT - will do very much to press the case for Ada in non-warfighting
Yes, I'm sure they all realize that the growth market for Ada is
outside the US DoD, and the committee's report certainly hasn't
> What do you think the chances are of the Ada industry making much investment
> in non-warfighting application support, in or out of DoD?
My presumption is that much of the investment will be in the
non-warfighting market. Thomson has always put a lot of attention on the
commercial market, particularly through their Windows-based products.
> > > -- David
> Mike Feldman
-Tucker Taft [log in to unmask]