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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4c9aaf040659caf8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Dave Wood Subject: Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud) Date: 1997/03/09 Message-ID: <33239A2B.352A@aonix.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 224320130 References: <3.0.32.19970307192557.009979a0@iu.net> <332231F7.470E@aonix.com> <1997Mar9.083231.1@eisner> Organization: Aonix Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-03-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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