From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_40,MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 11 Apr 92 07:18:06 GMT From: fedfil!news@uunet.uu.net (news) Subject: Re: Open comment to Ted Holden Message-ID: <2724@fedfil.UUCP> List-Id: 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