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=2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!nosc!cod!sampson
From: sampson@cod.NOSC.MIL (Charles H. Sampson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada
Message-ID: <2577@cod.NOSC.MIL>
Date: 13 Dec 90 22:12:22 GMT
References: <2449@sparko.gwu.edu>
Reply-To: sampson@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (Charles H. Sampson)
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <2449@sparko.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) 
quotes the U. S. Congress:
>
>"Sec. 8092. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after June 1, 1991,
> where cost-effective, all Department of Defense software shall be written
> in the programming language Ada, in the absence of a special exemption
> by an official designated by the Secretary of Defense."

     From the English language viewpoint, this statement has too many modi-
fiers.  At least it does if you assume that they are trying to force the
use of Ada with few exception.  As written, two valid interpretations ap-
pear to be: (1) If it's not cost-effective, no special exemption is needed
to avoid Ada, and (2) Even if it's cost-effective, Ada can be avoided by
obtaining a special exemption.

     I think they meant to say that all DoD software must be written in Ada
unless it is not cost-effective; if it is claimed to not be cost-effective,
that claim must be confirmed by a special exemption from SecDef.

     To borrow Norm Cohen's question from another context, who writes these
things?  (Probable answer here: people who love run-on sentences.)

                              Charlie