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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9f9e8bd17e4d4c4d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-22 18:47:38 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!news.dfn.de!urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de!newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de!puma.ssc.af.mil!gjennings From: gjennings@puma.ssc.af.mil Subject: Re: Eiffel for DoD development? Message-ID: <22SEP94.09194119@puma.ssc.af.mil> Sender: news@newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de (News Service) Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 15:19:41 GMT Date: 1994-09-22T15:19:41+00:00 List-Id: dennison@romulus23.DAB.GE.COM (Ted Dennison) wrote: >> From: dennison@romulus23.DAB.GE.COM (Ted Dennison) >> Date: 21-SEP-1994 16:31:59 >> Description: Re: Eiffel for DoD development? >> Message sent: 20 Sep 1994 14:26:37 GMT. >> In article , wayned@cpcug.org >> (Wayne Dernoncourt) writes: >> |> In article <34qal9$6s2@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, >> |> dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) wrote: [...snip...] >> |> I thought Ada was mandated only for embedded combat software, things like >> |> test sets, etc. were excluded from having to be written in Ada. Has DoD >> |> changed their tune and will now force new business system software, etc. >> |> to be written in Ada. [...snip...] >> You thought wrong. The Ada mandate NEVER had any such limitation on it. >> (In fact, the application you mention is one of the most difficult to use >> Ada on due to full Ada's run-time environment.) [...snip...] What "embedded" means is, in practice, open to debate. However, I've written digital flight control software in Ada and JOVIAL targeting a 1750A bare machine; this should satisfy the most stringent definition of "embedded". We never experienced significant problems using Ada due to its run-time. In fact, I was very, very pleased with Ada in this environment. We may not have satisfied your definition of "full Ada" because we didn't use tasking or dynamic allocation, but what does that give up when compared to other languages used in the same application? Wasn't there a "safe subset" thread recently that covered this topic? >> Anyway, mandating Ada for business systems under DoD contract (are there >> such things?) would NOT be a change of tune. [...snip...] I'm not sure what the question is... IF question is "are there business systems under DoD contract" This can't be the question, so I won't open myself for flaming ELSIF question is "is Ada used in DoD business systems" Yes, indeedy-doody it is or I've been dreaming for the past three years. We currently have four large Info Systems in house. Smallest is roughly 90k Ada physical lines (physical - blank - comment), the larget 400k and growing. ELSE "neither is really the question" Please elaborate ENDIF "question is..."