TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: Chad Bremmon <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 09:11:24 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: Chad Bremmon <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (18 lines)
Mr. Paige is right to say that a mandate is bad for DoD while Ada is not.

Why mandate it?  Why not just make it the easiest, least expensive, most
cost effective, quickest and best supported solution?

Instead of saying "If I use powerbuilder, it will be done in 2 weeks,"
people will be saying, "If I use Ada95, I can get someone else to do part,
another part is already done, and the other part will only take a week."

The mandate is not required to do that.  I might suggest a mandate on
interfaces.  You can write your code in assembly if you like, as long as it
works and you provide an Ada interface to it.

Although the above mentioned scenario is not automatic.  It will take a
serious shift in the DoD software business process.