Re: Open comment to Ted Holden

[fedfil!news@uunet.uu.net (news)]

In article <9204081355.AA13680@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu>, SAHARBAUGH@ROO.FIT.EDU writes
:
> Ted,
>   You do not seem to grasp the difference between the mission of
> the US Army and the mission of commercial software vendors.
> The US Army must defend our country and keep you and I and
> our decendants safe.  The commercial software vendors must
> make a profit for their stockholders.
>   You do not seem to grasp the difference in performance
> requirements ofr military software vs commercial software.
> Military software must work or we may lose the war. 

Several points:  The commercial software venders are now adhering
to standards, the most serious from the perspective of languages 
being C/C++.  The argument you give would pertain in a situation
in which Borland, MicroSoft, Ashton-Tate et. al. were each hawking
their very own language.  The reality is quite different.  The choice
is between the standard North American programming language (C/C++)
which everybody uses and which is well understood by most serious
programmers, and the flakey piece of garbage known as Ada.

The problems mentioned in that large post of mine are real enough.  Some
very bright people have been wasting their lives spending 12 hours working
around Ada and one hour solving their own problem (to the extent
possible WITH Ada)..

Virtually all really vital and serious military work is still being
done in C and other languages with waivers.  There's a real reason
for that.

Ted Holden



-- 
HTE
bear