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,e29c511c2b08561c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: Is the "Ada mandate" being reconsidered? Date: 1996/05/13 Message-ID: <3196E469.6DB6@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 154574860 references: <4mq7mg$8hs@jake.probe.net> <31913863.446B9B3D@escmail.orl.mmc.com> <3192c204.110870781@news.interramp.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 2.01 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Date: 1996-05-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Munck wrote: > > Except, of course, that there's hardly anyone on the committee > who has come within a mile of developing applications software > for the DoD in the last decade. I believe Maretta Holden would be an exception to this rule, and based on personal experience, I don't think she'll have any trouble presenting the DoD contractor view of things! Furthermore, based on my conversations with other members of this committee, I believe the "practical" point of view is reasonably well represented. Also, the committee has had inputs from DoD (which had inputs from DoD contractors), etc. so they are certainly not working in a vacuum. -- LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"