federal requirements to use ada

federal requirements to use ada

[dog.ee.lbl.gov!network.ucsd.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!wr]

Could someone clarify for me what requirements have been established
by the U.S. government (or any other govt) to use Ada?

What about the future?
--
Donald Tyzuk				Telephone: +1 902 542 7215
P.O. Box 1406				 Internet: 841613t@aucs.acadiau.ca
Wolfville, Nova Scotia
CANADA	B0P 1X0

Re: federal requirements to use ada

[elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!mips!wrdis01!nstn.ns.ca!pony.acadiau.ca!auc]

In article <841613t.695391198@aucs>, 841613t@aucs.acadiau.ca (Donald Tyzuk) wri
tes...
>Could someone clarify for me what requirements have been established
>by the U.S. government (or any other govt) to use Ada?

Looks like some congressman got a law to pass that mandates Ada for all DOD
projects.......unless it proves to be non-cost effective, or if there is a
good reason not to. Sounds like a pretty solid law to me. 

(I didn't know we had so many congressmen with extensive backgrounds in large
s/w systems development, systems engineering, or embedded systems development.)

(boy will this post cause a tuff battle or what?)
> 
>What about the future?
>--
>Donald Tyzuk				Telephone: +1 902 542 7215
>P.O. Box 1406				 Internet: 841613t@aucs.acadiau.ca
>Wolfville, Nova Scotia
>CANADA	B0P 1X0

**************************************************************************
John R. Cobarruvias (Koe-bar-roo-vee-us) *  "And to think.....I hesitated"
Aggie, class of '78                      *  
Oiler fan, since '78                     *   
Boxing fanatic, since August '79         *   

Re: federal requirements to use ada

[Gordon C Zaft]

	DoD Directive #3405.2 of March 30, 1987 states:

	"Ada shall be the single, common, high-order programming
language, effective immediately."

	There are a number of paragraphs of definitions and amplifying
information.

--
+  Gordon Zaft                        |  zaft@suned1.nswses.navy.mil         +
+  NSWSES, Code 4Y33                  |  suned1!zaft@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov      +
+  Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5007        |  Phone: (805) 982-0684 FAX: 982-8768 +
****************** Semper fidelis Christi et Vicarii sui *********************

Re: federal requirements to use ada

[dog.ee.lbl.gov!network.ucsd.edu!mvb.saic.com!eafbvax!eafbtems!martin]

In article <1992Jan14.143616.13899@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa
.gov (COBARRUVIAS_JOHN) writes:
> In article <841613t.695391198@aucs>, 841613t@aucs.acadiau.ca (Donald Tyzuk) w
rites...
>>Could someone clarify for me what requirements have been established
>>by the U.S. government (or any other govt) to use Ada?
> 
> Looks like some congressman got a law to pass that mandates Ada for all DOD
> projects.......unless it proves to be non-cost effective, or if there is a
> good reason not to. Sounds like a pretty solid law to me. 
> 

The Defense Authorization bill (It might have been the Defense Appropriations
bill, I saw both cited in print) of 1991 contained a provision that requires
that all DOD software development use the Ada programming language unless it is
not "economically feasible" to do so.  The law did not define "economically
feasible" and it did not contain contain any enforcement provisions according
to the press reports I saw at the time (almost 15 months ago).  However, the
Air Force already had a policy in effect (as June 1990) that provides
essentially the same criteria.  Exceptions (require no approval) are allowed
for single user type software, software with a lifecycle of less than three
years, and software for which the government will have no maintenance
responsibility.  Waivers (approved at the Secretary of the Air Force level) and
Exemptions (approved at the Headquarters, Air Force level) are allowed for in
those circumstances where there is a legitimate need to use a language other
than Ada.  I don't know if the other services have instituted policies of their
own yet or not.  An interesting side note is that Policy Letters such as this
one are supposed to be superceded by formal regulations within 90 days, but as
of yet this one has not become a formal reg.  
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
Gary S. Martin                !  (805)277-4509  DSN 527-4509
6510th Test Wing/TSWS         !  Martin@Edwards-TEMS.af.mil
Edwards AFB, CA 93523-5000    ! 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 

Re: federal requirements to use ada

[Michael Feldman]

In article <841613t.695391198@aucs> 841613t@aucs.acadiau.ca (Donald Tyzuk) writ
es:
>Could someone clarify for me what requirements have been established
>by the U.S. government (or any other govt) to use Ada?

The US Department of Defense is under a legislative mandate to use Ada for new
software, as from 6/1/91, where cost-effective. My understanding is that
the cost-effectiveness test is being applied in good faith, non-cynically,
via military policy documents (of which I have a couple which I'll
send by e-mail to anyone who writes for them).

NASA and FAA are heavy users of Ada, with no legal mandate to be such.

Other governments, netters? 

Mike

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman                       co-chair, SIGAda Education Committee

Visiting Professor 1991-92               Professor
Dept. of Comp. Sci. and Engrg.           Dept. of Elect. Engrg. and Comp. Sci.
University of Washington FR-35           The George Washington University
Seattle, WA 98105                        Washington, DC 20052

mfeldman@cs.washington.edu               mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu
(206) 632-3794 (voice)                   (202) 994-5253 (voice)
(206) 543-2969 (fax)                     (202) 994-5296 (fax)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: federal requirements to use ada

[snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!lynx!spectre.unm.e]

In article <1992Jan15.061432.18977@milton.u.washington.edu> mfeldman@milton.u.w
ashington.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:
>The US Department of Defense is under a legislative mandate to use Ada for new
>software, as from 6/1/91, where cost-effective. My understanding is that
>the cost-effectiveness test is being applied in good faith, non-cynically,
>via military policy documents (of which I have a couple which I'll
>send by e-mail to anyone who writes for them).
>
>NASA and FAA are heavy users of Ada, with no legal mandate to be such.
>
>Other governments, netters? 
>

Speaking for the numerically intensive government world however, I would
have to say that Ada is a non-starter.  I know of no major numerical codes
being written in Ada and there is a virtual dirth of compilers for any 
of the supercomputers (are there ANY?).  Some lip service is paid to these
"mandates", but the only people I know doing so are officials who are
at best distantly connected to the real world of computing.  None of this
is a statement about the pros or cons of Ada, it is just an observation
of the current state of numerical computing.  I don't see this changing
in the future.

John
-- 
John Prentice

"I would rather be climbing"