RE: Air Force using C Coding Standards to Assess Ada Projects

["Bandor, Michael S. (SSgt)" <BandorM@J64.STRATCOM.AF.MIL>]

I passed around the posting that Greg submitted to several personnel in 
various offices in US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM).  Based on their 
responses, I would say that Greg's source is either: a. sadly mistaken, or 
b. the evaluators/source got a hold of the wrong standards to evaluate their 
code by. I have "filtered" the responses to keep specifics about the sources 
somewhat anonymous.  Here are the responses that I received:

Response #1 (from SAF level):

    The information regarding the AFOTEC volumes is dated and the 
conclusions sent forth to Greg are just plain wrong.  I know for a fact that 
 AFOTEC has a method for specifically evaluating Ada.  I know because I was 
the chief of the methodology division that came out with it (back in 1990). 
 This coincided nicely with the direction that came out of Mr Mosemann's 
office for the AF policy on Ada.

     The only thing official is to look at the date/title of the evaluation 
pamphlet.  There have been updates to the pamphlets as the need arose.  I 
suspect someone didn't take the time to research what version of the 
pamphlet they had in their hands before blasting a loose cannon at the wrong 
target.  A responsible person would ensure that they checked to make sure 
they had the right method to apply to the evaluation as well as the most 
current version of the methodology.

     AFOTEC already knows about this message.  It's funny how such a 
credible software organization (that has been publicly praised by the other 
services as having the best software test methods around - so much that two 
of the other three services have torn off the AF cover and replaced with 
their own) is taking such a ripping over a poorly executed evaluation.


Response #2 (USSTRATCOM):

I'm always a bit skeptical when I see something from Mr Aharonian.  I think 
he tends to e-mail before he thinks sometimes.

I've worked with the AFOTEC people on creating a Vol 3 for Ada.  The 
publication was due to be finished late last year.  If a "C" Vol 3 was 
indeed used for the evaluation as stated in Mr Aharonian's message, I wager 
is was by mistake.  (As an aside:  I didn't know there was a Vol 3 that used 
"C" examples.  The original publication used until early this year had 
FORTRAN examples).  AFOTEC has made a concerted effort to incorporate 
Ada-related evaluation objectives into its procedures.  I think Mr Aharonian 
has been fed some bad data.




Mike Bandor, SSgt, USAF
NCOIC, Comm Gateway Software Engineering Team
Command Center Processing and Display System - Replacement
(CCPDS-R)
USSTRATCOM/J6454
Offutt AFB, NE

Internet/DDN:  STRATJ645@STRATHOST.STRATCOM.AF.MIL   or
                            BandorM@J64.STRATCOM.AF.MIL