I don't care how they do it as long as they provide the service and . . . provide a cost estimate for long term maintenance. They need to be held to the long term maintenance quote. For example. . . for a standalone new project it's easy to go all Ada. On the other hand, for a company who has a long term investment in C technology for say . . . operating systems, RDBMS and the like, they are going to have a better time maintaining the Ada95 interface to their technology. Chad ---------- From: owner-team-ada[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 1997 9:14 AM To: TEAM-ADA Subject: Re: Food for thought :> The only place where I suggest an "Ada Mandate" is in interfaces. That would be one place. But I wouldn't go as far as you did in your hypothetical quote. How about: " We (The DoD) need a system that will .......... Previous systems in this domain have shown that it is possible with Ada to have <metric> in the range of <typical acheivable value>. Therefore, proposals not promising that or better will not be accepted. Ada must be used , _at_least_ for interfaces to all key APIs in the system. Ada must be considered as a possible implementation language, but another language may be used as long as all quality requirements of this RFP are met." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) Office: 219-429-4923 Hughes Defense Communications (MS 10-41) Home: 219-471-7206 Fort Wayne, IN 46808 (Unix): [log in to unmask] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -