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
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"Squire, James A" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 7 Sep 1998 18:19:12 -0700
Content-Type:
multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BDDA8C.0479CE10"
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
"Squire, James A" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1778 bytes) , application/ms-tnef (3173 bytes)
Thomas W Moran [[log in to unmask]] wrote:

>My recent copy of Ada Letters contained an article saying that much
>of the DOD report was ignored - excepting the dropping of the
"mandate".
>But I've heard not a peep here about that article.  No comments?

Maybe it's because this was not news anymore.  It happened last year,
and we had our discussion about it then.

Just offering a possible explanation, that's all.

I have nothing further to offer the discussion myself.  I've always
suspected that the reality painted both by the DoD and by various
projects within the company I work for ("how the mandate has served its
purpose and isn't needed anymore" and "how we shouldn't just mindlessly
use one language, but rather the language that makes the most sense
given the contract", respectively) are both a smokescreen for more
"evil" intentions, but since I can't substantiate these suspicions and
furthermore am not being paid to do so, there's not much for me to do
but keep the faith and earn my salary.  Having been trained in C++ and
OO, and given that Ada is not close to drying up at this company, I'm
guessing there'll be plenty of opportunities to do that ;-)
---
James Squire                Send my Spam to
mailto:[log in to unmask]
MDA^H^H^HBoeing St. Louis
http://www.boeing.com
Opinions expressed here are my own and NOT my company's
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
"Why Babylon 5? If the prior four stations were lost or destroyed, why
    build another?"
'Plain old human stubbornness I guess. When something we value is
destroyed,
    we rebuild it. If its destroyed again, we rebuild it again...and
again
    and again and...again. Until it stays. That as our poet Tennison
once
    said is the goal: to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.'
        -- Delenn and Sinclair, "The Gathering"


ATOM RSS1 RSS2