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:
"W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 11 Mar 1997 09:13:55 EST
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>; from "Chad Bremmon" at Mar 11, 97 8:40 am
X-To:
Reply-To:
"W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (20 lines)
:> The only place where I suggest an "Ada Mandate" is in interfaces.

That would be one place.  But I wouldn't go as far as you did in your
hypothetical quote.  How about:

  " We (The DoD) need a system that will ..........  Previous systems
    in this domain have shown that it is possible with Ada to have
    <metric> in the range of <typical acheivable value>.  Therefore,
    proposals not promising that or better will not be accepted.
    Ada must be used , _at_least_ for interfaces to all key APIs
    in the system.  Ada must be considered as a possible implementation
    language, but another language may be used as long as all quality
    requirements of this RFP are met."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)                                Office: 219-429-4923
Hughes Defense Communications (MS 10-41)                 Home: 219-471-7206
Fort Wayne,  IN   46808                  (Unix): [log in to unmask]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2