>Although I don't have an answer, I think that TRW is asking the wrong
>question.  The issue is not the number of XYZ Programmers (where
>XYZ is Ada 95, C++, etc) but rather the number of people who
>understand the principles of software engineering and who also
>know XYZ.  I would suggest that although the sheer number of
>C++ programmers is undoubtedly much higher than that of
>Ada 95 programmers, if you filter the population so as to
>focus on those who truly understand software construction,
>then the numbers become closer.  It is far more likely
>that an Ada 95 programmer will also have a good understanding
>of software engineering, than a C++ programmer.  So although
>it may be harder to find Ada 95 programmers, those whom
>you do find will be more likely to succeed.
>
>I would hope that TRW is also looking at language issues such as
>standardization status, ability to interface with foreign code, etc.


BEN: I appreciate and respect (and even "theoretically" agree with)
your position, but in general Gov't procurement procedures make it
much more black-and-white than that.  If an RFP says "program in Ada
95," we say "how high should jump?", not try to convince the customer
he asked the wrong question.  If a procurement suggests that we choose
a language and demonstrate our capability in it, we need to not fudge
on the response -- and # of trained programmers is what the average
customer understands.  Rule #1 of proposals is directly address what
the RFP asks (i.e., "comply"); acting too smart and in any way
implying that we should be answering different questions is a sure way
to lose most procurements, so this would only be done so as to appear
to extend the basic compliant answer.  I think that's the game Ed
needs to play here.

        -- Hal