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

[Ken Garlington <GarlingtonKE@lmtas.lmco.com>]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> 
> 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.

Unfortunately, no one inside or outside DoD has ever figured out how to
do this.
For example, what does "incorrect" mean, given that the DoD certifies
the system
as "correct" before it is accepted in the first place? With respect to
life cycle
costs, how can the contractor be held liable for them if they aren't
permitted to
maintain the software?

As an alternative to solving this problem, the DoD decided to push
common
technologies (DoD-STD-2167, Ada, etc.) as a way to tackle the LCC issue.
Now,
all of these forcing functions are being withdrawn. I haven't seen
anyone
pushing an alternative.

As a result, acquisition costs will be reduced, and less maintenance
will be
done. Since the cost of avoiding maintenance isn't easily quantified,
the policy
change will look good.

> 
> Larry Kilgallen

--
LMTAS - The Fighter Enterprise - "Our Brand Means Quality"
For job listings, other info: http://www.lmtas.com or
http://www.lmco.com