TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Chad Bremmon <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 11 Mar 1997 08:40:23 -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 (25 lines)
It's not the language.  The language doesn't matter.

The ada mandate did NOT do the following:

Significantly increase Software Engineering capabilities  Beyond the
civilian world
Increase the level of large scale reuse

We have all conceded that Ada is a small, yet significant piece of the
Software Engineering puzzle.  We need to be mandating the things that Ada
is good for and then say, "Oh by the way, it's really easy to do that with
Ada"

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."

What this gives is flexibility to the vendors to do whatever they want, or
use their existing investment.  The DoD should standardize on the "glue
code" which is what it really needs in the first place.

Chad

ATOM RSS1 RSS2