TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text 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: Michael Feldman <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 13:00:59 -0500
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> from "Ralph E. Crafts" at Nov 7, 96 11:39:00 am
X-To: "Ralph E. Crafts" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Michael Feldman <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (30 lines)
> > >
> > Let me guess how Ralph Crafts, the ex-fighter jockey, would reply:
> >
> > "Ready; fire; aim."
> >
> > Right, Ralph? :-)
> >
> > Mike
> >
> Actually, I was an attack pilot (I have derogatory stories to tell
> about fighter jocks), but you're close with your guess--actually,
> I think they only got to "fire" since they obviously weren't "ready"
> enough to even "aim."
>
> --Ralph
>
Sigh... yes. The more I think about this study, the sadder I get that
the committee couldn;t or wouldn;t go deeper into the actual data.

Underfunding? Too short a fuse? Whatever the reason...

Sadder still is the fact that this was an NRC study, designed to be
independent, with membership of generally high credibility from many
sectors of the industry. Unlike some earlier studies that were
produced by captive DoD contractors, this one has a more credible
"look and feel". Too bad it turned out to be (we seem to agree here)
rather weakly justified.

Mike Feldman

ATOM RSS1 RSS2