Re: ada for pc(dos an linux)

Re: ada for pc(dos an linux)

[David D. Shochat]

In article <DKCGu6.7GD@irvine.com>, dan@irvine.com (Dan Eilers) wrote:

[snip]
> 
> As far as policy goes, AJPO policy is that the period until March 1997
> is a technology transition period, where new Ada compilers can be validated
> against either the Ada83 or Ada95 standard.  DoD policy, expressed in
> directive 3405-1, currently only allows Ada83.  And NIST, the sole authority
> for US Government language standards apparently removed its logo from
> current Ada95 validation certificates on the grounds that the Ada95
> validation suite 2.0 is only about half complete.
> 
>         -- Dan Eilers
>
Dan, could you explain a bit more about what is going on with NIST and Ada
95 validation? Also, my reading of 3405.1 seems to imply that everyone
should now be using Ada 95 since that is now Ada, although it is not yet
desirable or even possible for everyone to use Ada 95.
Thanks.
-- David

Re: ada for pc(dos an linux)

[Ted Dennison]

David D. Shochat wrote:
> 
> In article <DKCGu6.7GD@irvine.com>, dan@irvine.com (Dan Eilers) wrote:
> 
> > As far as policy goes, AJPO policy is that the period until March 1997
> > is a technology transition period, where new Ada compilers can be validated
> > against either the Ada83 or Ada95 standard.  DoD policy, expressed in
> > directive 3405-1, currently only allows Ada83.  And NIST, the sole authority
> > for US Government language standards apparently removed its logo from
> > current Ada95 validation certificates on the grounds that the Ada95
> > validation suite 2.0 is only about half complete.
> Dan, could you explain a bit more about what is going on with NIST and Ada
> 95 validation? Also, my reading of 3405.1 seems to imply that everyone
> should now be using Ada 95 since that is now Ada, although it is not yet
> desirable or even possible for everyone to use Ada 95.

I'd like to know this as well. I'm hearing a growing confusion over 
which version of the language is now "mandated". I'm even hearing some 
wishful-thinking C folks claim that the mandate is now invalid because
of the language transition. It would be nice to know what the status of
the "Ada Mandate" is. It seems there may now be a hole in it large
enough to drive a truck through.

-- 
T.E.D.          
                |  Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com  |
                |  Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net              |
                |  URL  - http://www.iag.net/~dennison         |