From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4c9aaf040659caf8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)
Date: 1997/03/09
Message-ID: <1997Mar9.134513.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 224216246
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org
References: <3.0.32.19970307192557.009979a0@iu.net> <dewar.857857451@merv>
 <332231F7.470E@aonix.com> <dewar.857914773@merv>
X-Nntp-Posting-User: KILGALLEN
X-Trace: 857933121/13574
Organization: LJK Software
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.857914773@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> The hardware vendors, with some notable exceptions, are not supporting
> Ada 95 to the extent that they supported Ada 83. This reflects their
> belief that the DoD is not really serious in preferring Ada. Even a
> few instances of large hardware orders being even partially decided
> by the level of Ada support would have a salutory effect!

Another factor regarding hardware vendors is the presence of independent
Ada software vendors specializing in sales into the military sector.  If
a vendor offered their own Ada compiler they might find that independent
Ada software vendors where recommending to government accounts everybody
else's hardware.  This is a "lesson learned" from the Ada 83 days.

Larry Kilgallen