TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional 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:
"Karl A. Nyberg" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 30 Nov 1998 14:04:21 EST
X-cc:
Reply-To:
"Karl A. Nyberg" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines)
This is the title of an article on p. 30 of Crosstalk, December 1998 by
Rayford B. Vaughn, Jr. from Mississippi State University.  I was unable to
find it on the crosstalk web site yet.  The summary states (typos mine):

        It should be clear that a year after the report was released, most of the
        recommendations and findings have not been followed.  There are earlier
        reports that indicate DoD adopted all but one recommendation, ..., but as
        can be seen from the above, little was adopted.  The process changes
        recommended by the report seem to be under careful study by the Office of
        the Secretary of Defense, but the overall intention of the report was not
        accepted.  The recommendations were meant to work together as a holistic
        approach to improve the software development process in DoD.  A piecemeal
        adoption may do more harm than good.  As a war-fighting language and a
        national competitive advantage, Ada would have to be considered in jeopardy
        at the current time.

-- Karl --

ATOM RSS1 RSS2