From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_05 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 18 Sep 92 16:34:35 GMT
From: ogicse!pnl-oracle!news@decwrl.dec.com  (Randy Jordan)
Subject: Re: DARPA admits Ada gets in the way
Message-ID: <1992Sep18.163435.9956@oracle.pnl.gov>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1992Sep18.004238.2689@mathsoft.com>, aha@mathsoft.com (Greg Aharoni
an) writes:
|>Path: pnl-oracle!ogicse!usenet.coe.montana.edu!rpi!think.com!mathsoft!aha
|>From: aha@mathsoft.com (Greg Aharonian)
|>Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
|>Subject: DARPA admits Ada gets in the way
|>Message-ID: <1992Sep18.004238.2689@mathsoft.com>
|>Date: Thu, 17 Sep 92 17:42:38 GMT+8:00
|>Article-I.D.: mathsoft.1992Sep18.004238.2689
|>Sender: usenet@mathsoft.com (Usenet News Administration)
|>Organization: MathSoft, Inc.
|>Lines: 82
|>Nntp-Posting-Host: fresnel
|>
|>
|>
|>That it has taken this long for people in DARPA finally to say something
|>tells alot about the supression of dissent inside the DoD.  After all,
|>when Ada first was really mandated, DARPA knew (or should have known)
|>what languages its contractors were using and how likely any of these
|>people would be to switch to Ada (trying converting some of these large
|>Lisp systems to Ada).  Given existing language transitions in general

The LAW does NOT require conversion of existing programs written in ANY
language .... only of NEW developement to be done in Ada (Thank GOD).

|>(which are low, and mostly in technical community Fortran --> C/C++)

NO one in their right mind converts FORTRAN to C anything. I delivered
a FORTRAN (2167) program to the Army several years ago (Before Ada) even THEN
C language was UNacceptable.

|>and with a mandate from the DoD, it should been obvious that not many of
|>DARPA's contractors would switch to Ada.  Obviously in the years since

Almost ALL DoD contractors use Ada now.

|>they haven't, and DARPA's current policy downgrading Ada reflects this.
|>
|>    And if these people are stating these things publicly, imagine the rest
|>of the dissent that is still being suppressed within the DoD with regards
|>to Ada.  If you read the program to the next Tri-Ada Conference, you will
|>not see anything that reflects this dissension at all.
|>
|>    What is so pathetic about the defense community botching of Ada is that
|>with less money and attention, it's VHDL language is catching on like crazy
|>in the circuit design world.  VHDL is being accepted in that community like
|>Ada advocates can only dream about.  What's funny is that the the languages
|>(Ada, VHDL) are similar enough syntactically that many of the defenses of
|>Ada's non-acceptance, in light of VHDL, are false.
|>

VHDL... Never heard of it.

|>
|>		WHEN IT COMES TO SPENDING THEIR OWN MONEY, PEOPLE
|>		DON'T SPEND IT ON ADA OR REUSABLE SOFTWARE.
|>

No, they spend it on Debugging and fixing C bugs, tring to read and maintain C
source and retrain jr programmers to updata unstructured C systems.

|>Greg Aharonian
|>Source Translation & Optimization
|>
--

RJ

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	To Thyne Own Self be true...
	                             myne opinions are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~