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=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!uunet!mcsun!cernvax!chx400!bernina!neptune!c!mneerach From: mneerach@iiic.ethz.ch (Matthias Ulrich Neeracher) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada Message-ID: <18173@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> Date: 14 Dec 90 20:59:43 GMT References: <2449@sparko.gwu.edu> Sender: news@neptune.inf.ethz.ch Reply-To: mneerach@iiic.ethz.ch Organization: Departement Informatik, ETH, Zurich List-Id: In article <2449@sparko.gwu.edu>, mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes: > "Sec. 8092. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after June 1, 1991, > where cost-effective, all Department of Defense software shall be written ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > in the programming language Ada, in the absence of a special exemption > by an official designated by the Secretary of Defense." To me, this looks like a rather radical attempt to prohibit further use of Ada :-). But then again, has there *ever* been something cost-effective produced for the Department of Defense ? Matthias ----- Matthias Neeracher mneerach@iiic.ethz.ch "These days, though, you have to be pretty technical before you can even aspire to crudeness." -- William Gibson, _Johnny Mnemonic_