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=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_40 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 11 Aug 93 00:13:21 GMT
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!darwin.sura.net!seas.g
wu.edu!mfeldman@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Michael Feldman)
Subject: Re: Govern.Comp.News editorial says "Drop Ada Mandate"
Message-ID: <1993Aug11.001321.5555@seas.gwu.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <22430.744913371@blackbird> munck@STARS.Reston.Paramax.COM writes:
>
[good stuff deleted]

>Although they sometimes do, the US Government and the DoD in
>particular cannot work this way.  The success of a DoD software
>project is not based on the ratio of sales to development cost,
>but rather on usability and life-cycle cost.  "Usability" often
>includes not causing loss of human life.  Given this huge
>difference, I don't see how a case can be made for the DoD
>using C just because commercial companies writing things like
>computer games do.  It's the equivalent of saying that the Air
>Force shouldn't have supersonic airplanes because no commercial
>American airline does.

Hear, hear!
>
>(BTW, I personally put much of the blame for industry's lousy
>long-term management on Ronald Reagan and the Harvard Business
>School.  Some may argue with that, but please not in Info-Ada
>or c.l.a).

Oh, I second that. Flames by e-mail, or better to /dev/null.

Mike Feldman