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: 103376,8c1dc815527f4fcc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lmtas.lmco.com>
Subject: Re: Future of the mandate to use Ada
Date: 1996/10/07
Message-ID: <3258EA0F.65BE@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 187405649
references: <01bbb178$d30c2140$72663389@billn.logicon.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 2.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Date: 1996-10-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bill Nielsen wrote:
> 
> Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Lloyd Mosemann, II
> writes in the preface to Guidelines for Successful Acquisition and
> Management of Software-Intensive Systems (June 1996): "... as DoD moves
> from mandating Ada to preferring Ada (the first choice is good, existing
> COTS) ...".
> 
> This statement, coupled with the fact that for the past two years I have
> been aware of several DoD programs using C++ instead of Ada, leads me to
> wonder if DoD is being more liberal in granting waivers and is considering
> removing or relaxing the Ada mandate, which I understand is still in
> effect.

The statement reflects current DoD direction, as described in the 5000 series
of directives (recently released). It is also consistent with the _old_ DoD
policy, which did not require Ada for COTS. The 5000 series defines when waivers
should be granted.

> 
> Thank you in advance for any information you have that clarifies this
> issue.
> 
> Bill Nielsen
> bnielsen@logicon.com

-- 
LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"
For more info, see http://www.lmtas.com or http://www.lmco.com