TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML 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:
Michael Feldman <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:01:47 -0500
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]> from "Tucker Taft" at Nov 11, 96 04:58:09 pm
X-To:
Reply-To:
Michael Feldman <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines)
>
> If anything, taking an over-pessimistic view of the NRC recommendations
> might produce a self-fulfilling prophecy, namely that it will help
> those who chose to interpret them as recommending that the DoD
> abandon Ada completely.

In my opinion, the summaries - especially the 4-bullet list that
was first posted here and elsewhere - already takes that pessimistic
view. Consider the two bullets

- Require Ada for warfighting systems
- Drop the requirement for other systems

The second bullet might have read,

- Encourage, but do not require, Ada for other systems

There is a world of different in tone and perception.

Mike Feldman

ATOM RSS1 RSS2