Re: Safety-Critical Systems Developed Using C++

[Marin David Condic <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org>]

This is why I didn't like the directive. I *know* the intent was to relax the
rules so that other languages could be considered where they made sense. The
problem is the *PERCEPTION* that it created - that somehow the DoD was admitting
that Ada was a big mistake and should never have been invented in the first place.
Those who have a pre-determined dislike of Ada for whatever reasons jumped on this
as validation of their prejudice. That was never the intent, but that was the
outcome.

Yes, there are a large number of defense related programs that use Ada. Yes, the
usage of Ada on these programs is strictly voluntary - not mandated. Yes, that
does show that intelligent engineering decisions get made in favor of Ada -
especially in safety critical areas. But the Anti-Ada-Ites out there seldom want
to look at hard facts - just the things that validate their own biases.

MDC

Lao Xiao Hai wrote:

> I keep encountering this kind of misinterpretation of DoD policy regarding
> Ada.   It seems that even
> those who have read Mr. Paige's directive on this subject fail to read it in
> its entirety.  All they
> see is the relaxing of the mandate, not the continued support for Ada.
>
> Richard Riehle

--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - http://www.quadruscorp.com/
Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m
Visit my web site at:  http://www.mcondic.com/

    "I'd trade it all for just a little more"
        --  Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10]
======================================================================