From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,55ad689dc8c82d8c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lfwc.lockheed.com>
Subject: Re: Ada policy enforcement
Date: 1996/03/21
Message-ID: <31515445.28DB@lfwc.lockheed.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 143612539
references: <4iir4c$koa$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Date: 1996-03-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

N. L. Sizemore wrote:
> 
> The question:  Given the legal status of the Ada mandate as both
> public law and regulation, why has DOD not only been lax in
> enforcement, but allowed wodespread use of a language not even on
> the list of DOD approved alternate languages?

I can't answer the core of your question (and agree it's a good question),
but I can pass on one item: There are apparently conflicting legal
opinions as to whether the Congressional part of the mandate expired with
the appropriations act to which it was attached. So, it's a matter of
opinion as to whether Ada is still public law.

As for regulation, there is also some ambiguity about the extent of
the Ada mandate, given the revised wording of DoDI 500.2. Hopefully,
this ambiguity will be better explained with the release of some of
the follow-on regulations (which will be out Real Soon Now).