Re: Free Hawaii trip if you buy my Ada products

[sampson@cod.nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson)]

In article <SRCTRAN.93Aug19224646@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory
 Aharonian) writes:
>
>>     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  [<-- That's me.]
>
>   Unfortunately, you also cannot demonstrate that use of Ada over a
>30-year project is cost effective.  While many assume so, there exist
>no validated economic model or data sets to prove so.
>
>  ...
>
>   So sure, it's hard to prove use of C++ or Smalltalk will be more cost
>effective over the 30 year life cycle.  It's also hard to prove use of
>Ada will also be more cost effective over the 30 year life cycle.

     I'll paraphrase the mandate again, even throwing in a little background
that doesn't actually appear in the text of the resolution.  It's saying, "We
made a decision in the late '70s that the way to reduce software costs in the
DoD is to rely on a single language.  Now that we have that language, that's
what will be used unless it can be shown that costs can be reduced even more
by using something else."

     As you say, it will be hard for the C++ and Smalltalk advocates to come
up with the necessary data.  In legal parlance, the mandate is simply estab-
lishing the burden of proof.  (I'm not a lawyer, but I like to play one from
time to time.)  In other words, it's no free-for-all.  Each project is not
free to choose its own language.  If somebody wants to use something other
than Ada, the burden of proving cost-effectiveness is on them; the Ada pro-
ponents are not required to prove that Ada is more cost-effective.

				Charlie