Re: NRC Study Report

[kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <55dnno$4d2@dfw.dfw.net>, dweller@dfw.net (David Weller) writes:
> In article <55b3oh$ba6@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us>,
> Susan Carlson <carlsons@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us> wrote:

>>	1.  Require Ada for DoD warfighting software;
>>
> If it's not for warfighting, doesn't that mean it (usually) falls
> under the budget axe?  I can understand R&D, but if I interpret it
> broadly, it means pretty much everything is "warfighting".  Then
> again, a narrow interpretation means: Things That Go Boom Or The
> Things That Deliver Them.

I would suspect that many logistics function would be viewed as not
being "warfighting" software.  A catalog of unused real estate holdings
would certainly not be cut from the budget, since it is designed to save
money.

>>	3.  Invest $15M/year for Ada infrastructure - or drop
>>		Ada requirement entirely;
>>
> $15M/year ain't a lot.  I'd consider that kind of funding level a
> disincentive for investment from commercial providers.  But again,
> that's just IMHO.

I would think it should be enough to run information services but not
fund development projects.  Information provided freely to all is of
help to the Ada community.  Information targeted at military officials
should ensure that when someone transfers back and forth between the
mandated and non-mandated military software worlds they know about
Ada in either case.

Larry Kilgallen