From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, RATWARE_MS_HASH,RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4c9aaf040659caf8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Pat Rogers" Subject: Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud) Date: 1997/03/13 Message-ID: <01bc2fbd$430ed060$640c6dce@my-pc.neosoft.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 225249405 References: <3.0.32.19970307192557.009979a0@iu.net> <332231F7.470E@aonix.com> <33242ECA.167EB0E7@innocon.com> Organization: Software Arts and Sciences Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-03-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jeff Carter 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).