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
X-cc:
[log in to unmask], Herm Fischer <[log in to unmask]>, Carol LeDoux <[log in to unmask]>, Jim Alstad <[log in to unmask]>, Ed Colbert - SIGAda Ada Awareness Manager <[log in to unmask]>, Judy Kerner <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask], J M JR Youmans <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask], Sy Wong <[log in to unmask]>, Bryce Bardin <[log in to unmask]>, Winsor Brown <[log in to unmask]>, Ray Toal - LMU & LA ACM Treasurer <[log in to unmask]>, Barry Boehm <[log in to unmask]>, David Shochat <[log in to unmask]>, Jock Rader - Hughes <[log in to unmask]>, Liz Manderfield <[log in to unmask]>, Ed Manderfield - LA SIGAda Program Chair <[log in to unmask]>, Lee Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>, Curtis Bradley - SIGAda Treasurer <[log in to unmask]>, Sean McNeil <[log in to unmask]>, George Huling <[log in to unmask]>, Rick Hefner <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Hal Hart <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 12 Mar 1997 13:34:46 -0500
In-Reply-To:
Your message of Sat, 08 Mar 97 23:17:00 EST. <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
"Paige, Emmett Jr., , OSD/C3I +" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:
Hal Hart <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (47 lines)
From: "Paige, Emmett Jr., , OSD/C3I +" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 23:17:00 -0500
>THANKS
>I GOT A LOT OF INPUT AND DISCUSSION BUT THE BUCK HAS TO STOP HERE.I DID
>WHAT I BELIEVE IS BEST FOR DOD AND HAVE NOT SAID NOR IMPLIED THAT ADA IS
>NOT GOOD FOR DOD.
> ----------

>I THINK ADA WILL COMPETE BETTER WITHOUT THE MANDATE.


MR. PAIGE: I believe you when you say you believe removing the Ada
mandate can be good for both (1) the DoD and (2) Ada.  As I said
before, my own personal sentiments have been the same.  I am also very
sympathetic to the general notion that the Government should minimize
telling us contractors "HOW" to do our business, which I know is a
context of acquisition reform into which dropping the Ada mandate fits.

However, we both have to realize that the NRC Committee DISAGREED with
us on point (1)  --  about the DoD's good.

The data the NRC Committee gathered added up to SUBSTANTIAL ADVANTAGES
from using Ada for high reliability, long-lifecycle evolvability,
etc. systems (which many feel describes more than just the DoD's
"warfighting" domain).

Couple that with the clear evidence of LOW PROSPECTS that other mature
or emerging languages have any prospect of closing the
high-reliability gap (even ignoring limiting the selection to
STANDARDIZED languages, which most of Ada's rivals are not).

Based on these findings, the NRC Committee apparently felt DoD's
overall interests would suffer if any language other than Ada is used
for this class of DoD applications in the near/mid-term future.
Enough so to justify continuing to tell contractors "How" to do this
aspect of business in this narrowed business domain.


Oh well, now we put all of DoD's eggs in the Software Engineering Plan
Review (SEPR) process if we think there's still a "Software Crisis"
that needs solving.  The SEPR process will actually be very good if it
comes online right, much better than the Ada mandate alone!  But we'll
never know if the SEPR  *PLUS*  Ada-for-warfighting would have been
better than either alone for the DoD going into the 21st century.

        -- Hal

ATOM RSS1 RSS2