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:
Tucker Taft <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 10 Mar 1997 21:17:11 -0500
Reply-To:
Tucker Taft <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (26 lines)
Richard Riehle wrote:

> I am writing this in my role as Ada columnist for Journal of
> Object-Oriented Programming (JOOP).
>
> With regard to the message (below) from Secretary Paige's office forwarded
> by Rush Kester regarding the abrogation of long-standing Ada policy:
>
> I am composing my column for a future (probably June or July) issue of
> the JOOP and will be expected to comment on this unfortunate decision.
> I would welcome input from members of Team-Ada for quotation and
> attribution in that column.

Your column has been very good for Ada, and my only recommendation
would be that you not let it become negative-sounding.  Reasonable
people differ on what is the best way to deal with Ada in the US DoD.
You can certainly have and express your own opinion, but I would recommend
you avoid focusing your criticism on Secretary Paige or the NRC committee,
and instead limit yourself to justifying your own position in
the debate.   Most of all, though, I think your readers are primarily
interested in the programming features of Ada, not in the Ada political
scene, which is all wrapped up with the difficulty of imposing any
software standards from the top-down in a large organization.

-Tucker Taft  [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2