TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 15:50:16 -0600
From: James Squire <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (29 lines)
Hal Hart wrote:

> HON. MR. PAIGE/Drew:
> Now I'm confused.  Last night I read a posting from Rush Kester that
> Mr. Paige had asked for community input on the breadth of definition
> of "war-fighting" and whether or not the Ada requirement should be
> completely removed, among other questions.  Then today I read a
> post from Mr. Paige via Rush stating that he has decided to totally
> eliminate the requirement to use Ada for any type of system.

So am I.  This "thing" continues to outpace my efforts to "get used to
it".  I thought the problem was that the scope of the mandate was too
wide.  I still have not heard a precise definition of "war-fighting"
software, but I had been hoping that this would be the outcome and that
for such projects the Ada mandate would be maintained.  It would have
clarified things around here (my place of work) in a reasonable way.

Instead, the question is punted completely.

"April Fool's" indeed.
James Squire           mailto:m193884 no junk mail
[log in to unmask]
MDA Avionics Tools & Processes
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace    
Opinions expressed here are my own and NOT my company's
"If you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." -- Gandhi