TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: Wesley Groleau <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:04:07 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Reply-To: Wesley Groleau <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (19 lines)
This is a second- or third-hand report of one or more studies by the
Center for Naval Analysis (CNA).  I do not know how these studies were
done nor how to get closer to the source.

Most of the message was related to specific DoD contracts.
I have omitted these sections and "censored" mention of one program in this
section.


b. CNA conducted an analysis of Ada versus C++. CNA stated that it would be
a wash. There was no advantage for either programming lanugage. xxxxxxx
stated that there could not be a pure Ada or C++ environment due to COE
migration. COE software modules that are provided by DISA support Ada
(Alerts module), JAVA, C, and C++. SPARWARS stated that there was a lack of
software tools to support Ada 95 programming and development. CNA disputed
that claim.
c. CNA conducted an analysis of UNIX versus WIN NT. CNA seem to favor UNIX
based on the reliability of the memory management.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2