Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[Dave Wood <dpw@aonix.com>]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> 
> I agree that Ada is tainted by the reputation that the only reason for
> using it would be a government requirement.  I believe, however, that
> a 20% advantage would give the same bad reputation.  (Saying something
> is due to a government requirement these days is not the way to gain
> public support.)
> 
> But if we agree that Ada is superior for maintainability and correctness,
> I would think a more fair mechanism for government would be to have those
> bidders choose their language knowing that they (the bidder) will have the
> burden of the "life cycle costs" and will have exposure for any damages
> based on (in-)correctness issues.

The problem is that it is hard to imagine the above being enacted,
because the temptation will be too great to provide the lowest up-front
bid (i.e., cut corners everywhere possible).  Contractors understandably
want to get the contract first and worry about how to fulfill it later,
and the acquisition office is similarly pressured to take the lowest
credible bid.  For major, long-term programs, the program office
turns over many times before anyone gets to the accountability
stage (and most likely on the contractor side as well), and this is 
why the incentive needs to be applied up front.  If Congress
assigns the incentive factor (e.g., 20%), then both the contractor
and the program office are off the pressure cooker to take the
path of least resistance.

I would justify an incentive break based on the logic that Ada 
presumably provides valuable benefits in life-cycle cost reduction
and improved reliability (the latter having potential tangential
cost reduction in human and materiel assets saved due to better
reliability.)  If the government doesn't really believe that Ada
saves them money and/ or assets, then why on Earth should they
either require or prefer it?  So, if the assumption going in is
that Ada provides such benefit, why not provide the associated 
incentive to the contractor who is bidding Ada over one who is 
bidding C?

This is kind of analogous to the logic for a capital gains tax cut.
The theory is that cutting this tax will entail an up-front cost
in the form of initially reduced revenue, but the loss will be more
than made up in heavier entrepreneurial investment and long-term
economic expansion.  If you believe the theory, then voting for the
revenue hit makes sense.  If you don't believe the theory, well,
then don't pretend like you really do.

So in short, if the government truly believes that Ada saves money
over the long term, they should financially incentivize (not mandate)
the contractors to use it.  If the government does *not* really 
believe it, then they should simply remove any further reference to 
Ada in their RFPs and standards and let the market have its way.

-- Dave Wood (speaking for myself)
-- Product Manager, ObjectAda for Windows
-- Aonix - "Ada with an Attitude"
-- http://www.aonix.com