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: 19 Aug 93 22:20:48 GMT From: sampson@cod.nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson) Subject: Re: Free Hawaii trip if you buy my Ada products Message-ID: <1993Aug19.222048.24966@nosc.mil> List-Id: In article ryer@dsd.camb.inmet.com (Mike Ryer ) writes: > > ... > >Ada may and may not be the best solution to an individual program manager's >immediate needs. After all, he's not going to maintain it. He's going to >be judged on development costs, and may be best off to use FORTH, or Jovial, >or PL/1, or COBOL if that's what his people know. My contention is that >it would be better for everyone if they (nearly) all used Ada instead of >making an optimized point-decision for each individual project. > > ... That's what the mandate is trying to do. It's telling the military types who are in a 3-year tour of duty at the beginning of a 30-year project, "You can use another language if you can demonstrate a cost savings over all 30 years. Otherwise, we don't want to hear about the amount that can be saved during your watch." If only they would can an Admiral or General or two for ignoring the mandate. (I have a nominee.) Charlie