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: 103376,91ece1fca423bb9d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ted Dennison <dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
Subject: Re: How Strict is DOD Ada Requirement?
Date: 1996/03/22
Message-ID: <31531D37.7AFF@escmail.orl.mmc.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 143739535
references: <4iuhsf$hg8@siberia.gtri.gatech.edu>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Lockheed Martin Marine Systems
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; HP-UX A.09.01 9000/750)
Date: 1996-03-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

William S Marshall IV wrote:
> 
> The Department of Defense is strongly promoting COTS-based streamlined
> acquisition to reduce the cost of weapon system development and
> procurement (COTS => commercial off the shelf).  A central facet of
> these cost reduction efforts is the deletion of MIL-SPECS and other
> burdensome Government requirements from some procurement packages.
> Does anyone have any insights or experience as to how this affects the
> mandate to use Ada in DOD systems?

Yes, it changes it immensly. Instead of using MIL-STD-1815A-1983 Ada, 
programs are now mandated to use ANSI-STD-1815A-1983 Ada. This ANSI 
standard is specified in the document labeled ANSI/MIL-STD-1815A-1983.

(For the sarcasm impared: yes, they are the SAME standard).

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