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=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 18 Sep 92 18:41:22 GMT From: ads.com!ckaun@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Carl Kaun) Subject: Re: DARPA admits Ada gets in the way Message-ID: <1992Sep18.184122.8984@ads.com> List-Id: I am a contractor who has worked on a number of DARPA projects. My comments reflect this experience, but otherwise are my own opinions, (and especially not those of my employer). aha@mathsoft.com (Greg Aharonian) writes: ... >> 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, Suppression of dissent? My experience is that at DARPA it has been basically a non-issue, because (at least in the areas of DARPA where I have been involved) DARPA has not been forced to use Ada. Even where there was encouragement to do so, it was relatively easy to write justifications avoiding its use. >> 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 Again, "these people" (referring to DARPA) discuss things, publicly or not, when it becomes an issue to them, and when not otherwise proscribed by security needs. In a 25 year career in DoD and working as a DoD contractor, I have never detected (IMHO) any significant "suppression" of discussion on non-security matters. I object to the post-hoc arguments whose premise (unsupported by evidence) is that if you do not (or have not) hear(d) others express opinions matching your own, then it is because those who hold such opinions are (or have been) suppressed. Such intellectual flabbiness leads shortly to unreality or dishonesty. >> to Ada. If you read the program to the next Tri-Ada Conference, you will not see anything that reflects this dissension at all. Post-hoc again. The content probably reflects the selections of the organizers, who may wish to promote the use of Ada, and not suppression as the statement seems to imply. >> 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 >> ... Is it botched? Why is it pathetic that a good language with features similar to Ada is catching on? ... . ----- Bottom line: I don't believe DoD is suppressing discussion, I would hate to have others think that it is unless there is other evidence for it. I do not address the issue of whether DoD policy concerning Ada use has been premature, excessive, or heavy-handed. That is a different issue than the "suppressing discussion" issue. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl F. Kaun ckaun@ads.com 415/960-7420 ---------------------------------------------------------------------