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: 21 Jul 93 20:23:54 GMT
From: ulysses!ulysses.att.com!liang@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Larry Liang)
Subject: Re: Admiral Tuttle (Should be ...) Revisited
Message-ID: <1993Jul21.202354.5359@ulysses.att.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <SRCTRAN.93Jul20092944@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory
 Aharonian) writes:
>   Paige's directive has no teeth behind it, so people are going to ignore 
>it just like they ignore the Federal law of the Mandate.  ARPA is continually
>on the record of not giving a damn what guys like Paige have to say about
>Ada.  The Navy, as represented by the NRL and ONR, are too busy trying to
>solve problems to care about using Ada.  And I could bore comp.lang.ada to
>death with story after story about Army and Air Force units being successful
>with non-Ada.  So Paige's directive (which he should have posted here),
>means nothing and will have no effect, simply because few inside the DoD
>believe the sincerity of the top Brass when it comes to Ada.
>

Please stop being politicians and try to work on the technical aspect of
Ada. If Ada can be improved somewhat, maybe people will choose to use
it without being forced to by a law.

Larry	liang@ulysses.att.com