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:
Ken Garlington <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 5 Nov 1996 14:20:14 +0000
X-To:
"Ralph E. Crafts" <[log in to unmask]>
Organization:
Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems
Reply-To:
Ken Garlington <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
Ralph E. Crafts wrote:

[snip]

> Of the 3 criteria (inadequate data, anecdotal evidence, and expert
> judgment), I believe the most valuable is "expert judgment," yet, in
> a study which addresses warfighting software, NOT A SINGLE MEMBER OF
> THE COMMITTEE IS/WAS A MEMBER OF THE MILITARY.  In other words, there
> was not one warfighter on a committee which was commissioned to study
> warfighting software.  Thus, the "expert judgment" did not include
> the expertise really needed to ensure value in the recommendations.

Not that I disagree with your overall analysis, but I think we need to
be even-handed in our discussion of this report. Although the F-22
program did advocate the continued use of Ada for DoD software, particularly
for critical software, higher-echelon DoD inputs to this study did not.
For example, the USAF presentation was extremely critical of Ada. I didn't
see the Navy presentation first-hand, but I suspect it was also somewhat
negative toward Ada based on other Navy presentations I have seen. Therefore,
I'm not sure that having warfighters on the committee would have helped.
Quite possibly, the results would have tilted even farther from from Ada
if there had been official DoD representatives on the committee.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2