Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

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

In article <332231F7.470E@aonix.com>, Dave Wood <dpw@aonix.com> writes:
> Robert Dewar wrote:
>> 
>> The idea of making Ada a preferred technology rather than mandating it
>> might very well be advantageous even from an Ada advocate's point of view.
>> Far too often now, Ada is mandated, but in practice someone is acting as
>> though some other technology is preferred. A genuine policy of preferring
>> Ada, other things being equal, might well be preferable. For example,
>> this would mean that hardware supporting Ada should be preferred over
>> hardware that does not support Ada.
> 
> 
> I agree.  I have often thought that the best way to ensure contractors
> will want to use Ada is not to (sorta, kinda) require it, but 
> to give them financial incentive.  The most obvious way to do this,
> it seems to me, is to fix the acquisition process such that a 
> contractor bidding Ada will have (say) a 20% advantage on their
> software bid over a contractor bidding another language.  I think
> you'd have to duck to miss the stampede of contractors bidding Ada.

I agree that Ada is tainted by the reputation that the only reason for
using it would be a government requirement.  I believe, however, that
a 20% advantage would give the same bad reputation.  (Saying something
is due to a government requirement these days is not the way to gain
public support.)

But if we agree that Ada is superior for maintainability and correctness,
I would think a more fair mechanism for government would be to have those
bidders choose their language knowing that they (the bidder) will have the
burden of the "life cycle costs" and will have exposure for any damages
based on (in-)correctness issues.

Larry Kilgallen