TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Proportional 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: "Bremmon, Chad, Capt, SAM-GAPF" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 10:03:00 PST
Reply-To: "Bremmon, Chad, Capt, SAM-GAPF" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (44 lines)
I don't care how they do it as long as they provide the service and . . .
provide a cost estimate for long term maintenance.  They need to be held
to the long term maintenance quote.

For example. . . for a standalone new project it's easy to go all Ada.

On the other hand, for a company who has a long term investment in C
technology for say  . . . operating systems, RDBMS and the like, they are
going to have a better time maintaining the Ada95 interface to their


From:  owner-team-ada[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:  Tuesday, March 11, 1997 9:14 AM
Subject:  Re: Food for thought

:> The only place where I suggest an "Ada Mandate" is in interfaces.

That would be one place.  But I wouldn't go as far as you did in your
hypothetical quote.  How about:

  " We (The DoD) need a system that will ..........  Previous systems
    in this domain have shown that it is possible with Ada to have
    <metric> in the range of <typical acheivable value>.  Therefore,
    proposals not promising that or better will not be accepted.
    Ada must be used , _at_least_ for interfaces to all key APIs
    in the system.  Ada must be considered as a possible implementation
    language, but another language may be used as long as all quality
    requirements of this RFP are met."

W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)                                Office:
Hughes Defense Communications (MS 10-41)                 Home:
Fort Wayne,  IN   46808                  (Unix):
[log in to unmask]