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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-16 20:12:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.nuthinbutnews.com!feed-ev1!propagator-sterling!news-in.nuthinbutnews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!washdc3-snf1!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed0.news.atl.earthlink.net!news.atl.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail From: Richard Riehle Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Rant! (was) Development process in the Ada community Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 20:13:19 -0700 Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering Message-ID: <3CBCE84E.811EA1C3@adaworks.com> References: <3CB46975.90408@snafu.de> <3CB77A6B.5090504@snafu.de> <184076622a7c648f157c56e417bd86d4.48257@mygate.mailgate.org> <3CB9375F.8040904@snafu.de> Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 41.b2.73.f5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 17 Apr 2002 03:11:46 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22627 Date: 2002-04-17T03:11:46+00:00 List-Id: Ingo Marks wrote: > Who "owns" Ada? The DoD has decided to quit Ada so they don't seem to have > any more interest. OK, let's get this straight. The DoD has not decided to quit Ada. I still correspond with former Assistant Secretary of Defense Emmett Paige from time to time and I gather that one of his disappointments is the misinterpretation of his memo abrogating the Ada mandate. If I may take the liberty of defending his original intent, he expected Ada to be a language among others, still used, when appropriate for DoD software systems. His memo says a Software Engineering Review Process (SEPR) should be determining factor for choosing a programming language. Very few DoD contractors are paying attention to this order any more than they did the original Ada mandate. Ada is still being chosen for DoD software projects, even though it is not being chosen as often as it was before Secretary Paige's memo. Some developers, having evaluated C++ and discovered just how error-prone it is, have decided to stick with Ada. Others, unable to admit their monumental stupidity, have dug in and pushed ahead with C++. They will, of course, rue the day they decided to use C++ instead of Ada, but that will never become public knowledge. Already, many of them have decided to use Java instead of C++ instead of admitting they would have been better off with Ada. Those who have chosen to stick with Ada are doing well with it. As for the DoD deciding to abandon Ada. There are certainly program managers, employed by the Dod, who have misunderstood Secretary Paige's memo. There are program managers who have been hoodwinked into a misunderstanding by DoD software developers. However, there are still program managers who specify Ada as a first choice because they understand its merits. I have a little contact with some of these managers and have taken the time to educate those willing to listen regarding the advantages and disadvantages of competing choices among languages. Those who understand will continue to make the right choice. Those who don't will continue to be led into bad decisions by the media and the contractors. Richard Riehle