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: 11 Jun 93 15:38:26 GMT
From: sampson@cod.nosc.mil  (Charles H. Sampson)
Subject: Re: How to Make Ada more widely used?
Message-ID: <1993Jun11.153826.221@nosc.mil>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1993Jun9.214716.15798@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (
fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <C83xAE.MMs@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shime
all) writes:
>
>>In article <SRCTRAN.93Jun2233244@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregor
y Aharonian) writes:
>>>   Simple.  Drop the Ada Mandate.  It is an artificial distortion of the
>>>marketplace that has sheltered Ada from competition with other languages.
>
>>Tell us Greg: If the Ada Mandate is dropped, how is DoD to retain
>>the small-language-set benefits?  
>
>Have there been any believable studies to indicate that these benefits
>have indeed been received?  In other words, is there any credible
>evidence that the likely gains and savings made are not wiped out by
>the higher cost of Ada compilers and development tools?

     The impetus behind the effort that led to Ada was the DoD's conclusion
in the 70's that the proliferation of languages being used at that time was
a major part of the cost of DoD software.  This conclusion was based on
studies, but I don't remember if they addressed the issue of tool costs. 
Unfortunately, I haven't the slightest idea where you should look to find
government documents this old or how you can request them if you know where
to look.

                              Charlie