Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

["Pat Rogers" <progers@acm.org>]

Jeff Carter <carter@innocon.com> wrote in article
<33242ECA.167EB0E7@innocon.com>...
> Robert Dewar wrote:
> > 
> > I got a call about a year ago from a project director of a large DoD
> > project, who was looking for an Ada to C++ translator. He told me that
> > they were an Ada shop, and were extremely upset to have to convert to
> > C++, but that "the general in charge of the project" was insisting that
> > the code be written in C++, and would not allow Ada to be used. This
kind
> > of case (I don't think it is unique), not only makes a mockery of the
> > idea of a mandate, but also is the antithesis of a policy of preferring
> > the use of Ada.
> 
> Is the correct response here, "You're paying the bills; if you think
> you're better qualified to make this technical decision then us, we'll
> use D--. However, we're doing the charging, and if you insist on usinge
> D--, we will charge you X times more than if we use Ada"?

It should be, but the customer would just look elsewhere until they found
somebody to do it for a price they liked.

It has been said already, but I cannot fathom why anyone thinks the DoD
will manage this new approach any better than the previous policy (aka the
mandate).