Mike et al,
> Even though you and I know this is not a good decision, I think it reflects
> the reality of the situation within DoD...being the 'Ada mandate' is no
> longer in force, there is an acute shortage of trained Ada programmers
> within and wothout DoD, and the availability of COTS components and tools
> which are abundant in the civilian sector are having an impact on DoD.
The acute shortage is a chicken-and-egg problem. Part of tghe reason
for the acute shortage of people is that those who would educate
them sincerely believe that there is an acute shortage of jobs.
There is pretty good information on the colleges and universities
in which Ada is taken seriously. Are the companies that would hire
Ada people recruiting, heavily, from these places? I can speak for GW
and assure you they are not recruiting heavily here. My department
graduates a couple dozen people a year in BS CS (and this number
is growing steadily each year), and they are all educated in multiple
languages, starting with Ada.
Not all these students are stellar performers of course, but most
are quite good. Every one of these students gets into a good job or a
good graduate program, yet few of them are being recruited by companies
like your own, so few of them end up in jobs where they can use their
This is changing just a bit - the Lockheed Martin Air Traffic
Control folks have discovered us. But I had to make the first
contact; I guess it never occurred to anyone in the company to
look in the city whose suburb holds their corporate headquarters.
I teach in one of hundreds of colleges and universities is which Ada
is taught, and one of over 100 in which it is taught early in the
curriculum. Is industry seriously looking at all of us? Not in my
experience. Communication must be 2-way.
In any case, this discussion is off-topic.
The Ada -> JBC argument is bogus, and has nothing
whatever to do with the (alleged) shortage of people.