Re: US Army agrees with Admiral Tuttle, for AI and not-Ada

Re: US Army agrees with Admiral Tuttle, for AI and not-Ada

[Gregory Aharonian]

>Okay, Greg, you've waved you hand at it like a red kerchief, so I will
>take it by the horns:  What proportion of the Army's AI stuff is
>included in the survey?  I'm worried about your use of `extensive' and
>the impression a word like that will leave in the absence of context
>data.  After all, you're presenting this as a statistic (the worst of
>lies! :-).
>Jim Crigler

Jim,
	I don't claim my statistics that I post are accurate.  I will 
claim that they are the only statistics that do exist for Ada activities.
In fact someone from the Army challenge me about this particular statistic,
and my response was "Fine, show me a list of Army AI projects in Ada".
Until then, the Army does not support the use of Ada for AI.  What percentage
of Army AI is in Ada?  I doubt anyone in the country knows, especially all
of the DoD software reuse centers, which should be tracking this type of
stuff.  My databases have it - so should these professionally run operations.

  	In general (or in admiral) one reason that I don't believe the DoD
really gives a gastrointestinal-byproduct about Ada is that the DoD refuses
to collect data revealing exactly what is going on with the language inside
and outside the DoD.  In the business world, such ignorance of demographics
is a sure route to bankruptcy.  In the DoD, it seems to be a route to
promotions.  At that rate Ada is going, some day there will be courses in
Adanecrolexicography (I am writing this while reading an Atlantic article).

	I presented a ton of data at WadaS showing that Ada use is negligible
outside the Mandated World, and inside the Mandated World it is whimsical.
Admittedly, my data isn't the most accurate (I don't have the plush rugs like
SEI does) but it is the only data that exists, a sad commentary on DoD support
for Ada.  Well, at least I got a pat on the head for my data.

	So please don't consider my data to be reliable statistics in the
absolute sense, only in the relative sense.  And until the DoD funds a real
study of programming language demographics, they will never be able to 
effectively address the problems facing Ada, assuming that they care at all.
-- 
**************************************************************************
 Greg Aharonian
 Source Translation & Optimization
 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

Re: US Army agrees with Admiral Tuttle, for AI and not-Ada

[Jim Crigler]

Greg Aharonian (srctran@world.std.com) wrote about my comment about his
use of statistics:

: I don't claim my statistics that I post are accurate.  I will claim
: that they are the only statistics that do exist for Ada activities.
: In fact someone from the Army challenge me about this particular
: statistic, and my response was "Fine, show me a list of Army AI
: projects in Ada".

Anybody care to charge this red flag?  Unless Greg is repudiated with _facts_,
I think we have to believe him.

[...]
: My databases have it - so should these professionally run operations.

I don't _think_ you meant to exclude yourself from the set
{professionally run operations} ;-)

: In general (or in admiral) one reason that I don't believe the DoD
: really [cares] about Ada is that the DoD refuses to collect data
: revealing exactly what is going on with the language inside and
: outside the DoD.  In the business world, such ignorance of
: demographics is a sure route to bankruptcy.

: 	I presented a ton of data at WadaS [...]

... which I was sad to have missed.

: Admittedly, my data isn't the most accurate (I don't have the plush
: rugs like SEI does) but it is the only data that exists, a sad
: commentary on DoD support for Ada.

See my response to the first exerpted paragraph.  Any challenges?

Jim Crigler
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't figure out what Martin Marietta's opinion _is_, much less
speak for it.

Re: US Army agrees with Admiral Tuttle, for AI and not-Ada

[David Emery]

Hey, The Army Command and General Staff college is NOT a computer
science school.  Rather, it's for teaching Majors to be Colonels and
Generals.  I've read several C&GS papers in my 'other field' (military
history) and they've varied in quality from outstanding to pure
drivel.  

In the area of the applications of computer science within the
military, I'd discount anything done at C&GSC.  Now, if the paper were
written by an Army person at the Air Force Institute of Technology or
Naval Postgraduate School (both degree-granting technical schools),
I'd take it much more seriously.  I'd still want to see how
comprehensive the survey was (all too often such papers get written by
asking your friends what they're doing, and extrapolating.)  

Finally, such papers do *NOT* represent the policies of the services,
any more than any individual's thesis represents the policy of any
other university.

				dave