TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: Pat Rogers <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 15:22:08 -0600
X-To: "Paige, Emmett Jr., , OSD/C3I +" <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
Reply-To: Pat Rogers <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (46 lines)
>
> THIS ONE IS INSULTING TO A LOT OF SMART,INTELLIGENT FOLKS IN DOD THAT
> HAVE AS MUCH EXPERIENCE AS  THE EDITOR AND MOST OF THE ADDRESSES. IT
> STRESSES THAT THOSE WHO ARE IN DOD FOR WHATEVER REASON ARE IDIOTS WHO DO
> NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT WE NEED OR TO TEST WHAT WE BUY.
> I REJECT THAT NOTION FROM ANYONE. BEING IN ACADEMIA OR INDUSTRIA DOES
> NOT TRANSLATE TO BEING THE SMARTEST AND MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE FOLKS IN THE
> WORLD OR THIS COUNTRY. NOR THE STRONGEST OR MOST ABLE TO USE THEIR
> BRAINPOWER. IINCOMPETENCE HAS NO BARRIERS AND IT CROSSES INTO ALL CAMPS
> TO INCLUDE ACADEMIA AND INDUSTRY. AT LEAST GOVT AND INDUSTRY HAVE
> AVENUES AVAILABLE TO ELIMINATE THOSE INDIVIDUAL WHEN THEY ARE
> DISCOVERED.
>    MY BETTER JUDGEMENT TOLD ME TO SIMPLY IGNORE AND NOT RESPOND TO YOUR
> COMMENTS BELOW PARAGRAPH ONE, BUT YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT YOU ARE
> INSULTING A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ALSO PAY TAXES JUST AS YOU DO AND THERE IS
> NO REASON OR ANYTHING THAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO ATTACK THEM OR INFER
> THAT WE HAVE A GOVT WORKFORCE OF INCOMPETENTS.
> MAY GOD BLESS YOU ANYWAY.
>

Although one cannot in good faith pass out insults and then say "No
offense", I'm sure Dr. Firth intended none.  Please accept my apologies
offered in his place.

Let's deal only in fact.

Even though there were many intelligent people in government, academia and
industry, the "Software Crisis"  was a fact.  In the 1970's many
intelligent people in government, academia and industry believed that this
"Crisis" was a major problem for DoD programs and that a standard language
would be part of the solution.

Even though there are many intelligent people in the DoD, they couldn't
implement the policy for the use of that standard language.

The question that keeps being raised, IMHO, is this: Why will DoD be able
to implement a new policy that is certainly less straight-forward to
implement than its predecessor?

With respect,

Patrick Rogers
[log in to unmask]

My opinions only, of course.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2