Re: Ada Professionalism Document

[dma@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dennis Anderson)]

We already have a military standard CPU architecture (Mil-Std-1750A),
and a military standard language (Ada).  Is it now intended to create
military standard programmers?

One of the reasons for the development of Ada was the reduction
of the life-cycle costs of software.  It isn't going to reduce 
costs if you seek to limit the number of programmers allowed to
write it.

>There is some justification for licensing those serving the general
>public when the public would otherwise have trouble evaluating
>qualifications and when a mistake could be disastrous, as in law and
>medicine.  I am prepared to argue that the current licensing schemes in
>those professions are better than nothing, but not much.  In the case of
>programmers, however, those hiring are in a better position to judge
>individual qualifications than the public.  Professional licenses for
>programmers?  I say it's spinach, and to hell with it.
>-- 
>D Gary Grady
>Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC  27706
>(919) 684-3695
>USENET:  {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary

Absolutely right. Professionalism in programming is good.
A legally enforced standard of professionalism is not.
We should all work to do away with the effort in this direction 
before it gets out of control.



				Dennis Anderson @ Boeing Aerospace