TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To: Michael Feldman <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 17:27:59 -0400
Reply-To: "Robert I. Eachus" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Ada ads
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (25 lines)
At 04:13 PM 4/17/98 -0400, Michael Feldman wrote:
>Promise? :-)

  No.  Why?  Because I am in a position where sometimes I have to say
mandate and make it stick. ;-)  Fortunately we are now getting to where the
contractors are insisting on Ada, in spite of those Project Managers at the
SPO who know that using C is in their personal best interest.

  There is still a mandate in the DoD to use the best language for the job.
 The wording may be different from the original Ada mandate, but the effect
is the same.

  My favorite case study on this was a program to update the computers for
a radar system.  The SPO originally wanted an Ada waiver because it would
cost $17 million more to write the code in Ada.  This was blown out of the
water when the contractor studied the issue and reduced their bid by almost
exactly the same amount--if they could use Ada.  (The project finished
basically within time and budget.  The software development was under on both.)

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...