Re: Open Systems closed to Ada?

[agate!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!csc .ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mccall@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (fred j mccall 575-3]

In <92346.46129.LJ10891@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> LJ10891@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKH
EED.COM writes:

>   Fred, I lost count of the number of times you used the word "mandate" in
>your last post, but I gather that this is a pet peeve of yours.

>   In all seriousness, your implication that no one would use a non-validated
>Ada compiler, and therefore such a compiler has no value, seems suspect to me.

It may seem suspect, but take a look at who the major Ada customers
are, at least in this country.  If the government won't buy off on it,
companies probably aren't going to go to the effort of producing it.

>If you would briefly grant me the assumption that the mandate was being
>successfully enforced, would you agree with the statement that "No one can use
>any 'C' compiler, therefore 'C' compilers are useless"?  I doubt it.

No, because the major customer for C has no such 'mandate'.

>   I disagree with the Ada mandate; however, when all is said and done, the Do
D
>is just one software customer.  I doubt there's a large market for Macintosh
>software at IBM.  It hasn't kept Mac programmers from peddling their wares
>elsewhere.  If the DoD chooses to freeze THEIR technology for eleven
>years at a pop, IT'S THEIR CHOICE (and, IMHO, one whose wisdom has yet to be
>established).

Yes, it's their choice.  And it stultifies the Ada market.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.