Re: state of Ada / Paige memo

["jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net" <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net>]

On Aug 30, 6:48 pm, Gary Scott <garylsc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
> I deal with DOD a lot.  I don't think this is generally true.  Industry
> rebellion had something to do with it (ready trained supply of C
> programmers (er hackers)).

I have also had some experience with the DoD. Industry rebellion is
not
a valid excuse. DoD Purchasing Organizations can easily require cost
and
quality analyses of chosen tools, including programming languages. The
fact that they do not is an indication that contracts are often
produced
and supervised by very junior officers with little or no experience
in
the field. Those officers learn are taught their jobs by interacting
with
the Industry contractors. Those contractors are adept at feeding loads
of
bovine excrement to the junior officers as though it was real
information.

Similar problems arise in NASA contracts. Most of the engineers who
built
human-rated space vehicles for NASA are retired or dead. The current
crop
of NASA engineers relies upon its contractors to create requirements.
Those contractors make more money when a project requires change
orders
due to faulty requirements, faulty design, faulty implementation, and
schedule slips than they do by producing the desired product according
to
the original contract. Many (not all) contractors do not want to use a
reliable language when more money can be made using an unreliable
language.

Jim Rogers