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: 103376,87cdb3ab9d84f71c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: NRC Public Briefing on Ada Date: 1996/11/08 Message-ID: <3283295C.598C@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 195316900 references: <55eame$t1l@felix.seas.gwu.edu> <55k2qc$qoj@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <01bbca3c$b0579940$028371a5@dhoossr.iquest.com> <55mbt0$3q9@uuneo.neosoft.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: 1996-11-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > > ...the idea of writing the operational > software in language x and the corresponding simulator software in language > y is totally nuts to me, for any possible choices of x and y! The idea of using operational code for simulation/training purposes (or vice versa) is definitely a "hot button" in the DoD right now. It should also be pointed out that a lot of simulation/training code developed for military purposes can be used for commercial purposes as well (and vice versa). Which means we start talking about COTS, which means (I think) that we are well on our way to a major collision between this "Ada for warfighting only" concept and "More reuse between commercial/COTS and warfighting software." Not that I have a solution, but I see the train wreck coming... -- LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality" For more info, see http://www.lmtas.com or http://www.lmco.com