TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
"Hayden, Charlene" <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 12 Mar 1997 14:20:28 -0500
text/plain (79 lines)
Hal,

 I strongly agree with your comments.  I know here in the Boston area,
on various committees I participate on, I have heard nothing but
distress and regret  from the proponents of Ada who know the worth of
the only highly reliable HOL in existence today,  and sarcasm from Ada's
opponents, "even the DoD has given up on Ada".  I think that without the
Ada mandate, given the popular, existing languages unreliability and the
software explosion far surpassing that of the 1980's,  the DoD is headed
for an even more catastrophic software revolution than that which
preceded and was the impetus for the Ada language.

>----------
>From:  Hal Hart[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent:  Wednesday, 12 March, 1997 1:34 PM
>To:    Paige, Emmett Jr., , OSD/C3I +
>Cc:    [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>Lee Schmidt; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
>[log in to unmask]
>Subject:       Re: Reason for Mr. Paige's Decision Unclear
>
>From: "Paige, Emmett Jr., , OSD/C3I +" <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 23:17:00 -0500
>>THANKS
>>I GOT A LOT OF INPUT AND DISCUSSION BUT THE BUCK HAS TO STOP HERE.I DID
>>WHAT I BELIEVE IS BEST FOR DOD AND HAVE NOT SAID NOR IMPLIED THAT ADA IS
>>NOT GOOD FOR DOD.
>> ----------
>
>>I THINK ADA WILL COMPETE BETTER WITHOUT THE MANDATE.
>
>
>MR. PAIGE: I believe you when you say you believe removing the Ada
>mandate can be good for both (1) the DoD and (2) Ada.  As I said
>before, my own personal sentiments have been the same.  I am also very
>sympathetic to the general notion that the Government should minimize
>telling us contractors "HOW" to do our business, which I know is a
>context of acquisition reform into which dropping the Ada mandate fits.
>
>However, we both have to realize that the NRC Committee DISAGREED with
>us on point (1)  --  about the DoD's good.
>
>The data the NRC Committee gathered added up to SUBSTANTIAL ADVANTAGES
>from using Ada for high reliability, long-lifecycle evolvability,
>etc. systems (which many feel describes more than just the DoD's
>"warfighting" domain).
>
>Couple that with the clear evidence of LOW PROSPECTS that other mature
>or emerging languages have any prospect of closing the
>high-reliability gap (even ignoring limiting the selection to
>STANDARDIZED languages, which most of Ada's rivals are not).
>
>Based on these findings, the NRC Committee apparently felt DoD's
>overall interests would suffer if any language other than Ada is used
>for this class of DoD applications in the near/mid-term future.
>Enough so to justify continuing to tell contractors "How" to do this
>aspect of business in this narrowed business domain.
>
>
>Oh well, now we put all of DoD's eggs in the Software Engineering Plan
>Review (SEPR) process if we think there's still a "Software Crisis"
>that needs solving.  The SEPR process will actually be very good if it
>comes online right, much better than the Ada mandate alone!  But we'll
>never know if the SEPR  *PLUS*  Ada-for-warfighting would have been
>better than either alone for the DoD going into the 21st century.
>
>       -- Hal
>
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2