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: "Theodore E. Dennison" Subject: Re: Is the "Ada mandate" being reconsidered? Date: 1996/06/17 Message-ID: <31C5547D.446B9B3D@escmail.orl.mmc.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 160633729 references: <4prqqk$4ho@news.sei.cmu.edu> <4prtdi$3gs@michp1.redstone.army.mil> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Martin Information Systems mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m) Date: 1996-06-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Kevin J. Weise wrote: > > Those are all very good questions to ask; and all points are well taken. But it > doesn't seem to help weed out one of the most insidious dodges to the use of Ada > that I've seen, which is: > > While chasing project X, implement as much of the project according to req'ts > as known at the time under the guise of IR&D, using language Y (or Y++). The dodge isn't the activity you describe, but the people performing it. If COTS were outlawed, they would just find another excuse. Going after the excuse itself is like trying to pull weeds by hand; for every one you pull up, six more are sprouting up elsewhere. -- T.E.D. | Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com | | Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net | | URL - http://www.iag.net/~dennison |