TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 11:31:43 -0500
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> (message from Chad Bremmon on Tue, 11 Mar 1997 08:40:23 -0500)
Reply-To: "Robert I. Eachus" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (27 lines)
   Chad Bremmon said:

  > The only place where I suggest an "Ada Mandate" is in interfaces.
  > This is based a lot on discussions with Tucker Taft.  I suggest
  > the following take on Ada.  "I (The DoD) need a service.  Please
  > provide the service.  Oh by the way, provide an Ada interface to
  > all key API's to your system.  You can do it in any language you
  > want."

   Amen!  But get testing to the binding in the contract.  It would
save the government billions if we could establish that the interfaces
are really intended as a deliverable.  A hardware ICD is usually
fairly well maintainded during a project, but the number of useful
software ICDs that are maintained is precious small.  I was on one
contract (involving a client/server configuration) where the vendor
tried to convince us that the only software ICD was to the OS API.
Pulleze! If you really are using POSIX, I don't need three hundred
pages of direct quotes of the POSIX Ada binding, but I do need to know
the protocol the client uses to talk to the server.


                                        Robert I. Eachus

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2