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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 10:06:00 PDT From: "Bandor, Michael S. (SSgt)" Subject: RE: Air Force using C Coding Standards to Assess Ada Projects Message-ID: <2CA86FBB@SMTPGATE.STRATCOM.AF.MIL> List-Id: 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