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: 103376,55ad689dc8c82d8c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: pitre@n5160d.nrl.navy.mil (Richard Pitre)
Subject: Re: Ada policy enforcement
Date: 1996/03/28
Message-ID: <4jf65c$9k3@ra.nrl.navy.mil>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 144745948
references: <4j2149$ljd@felix.seas.gwu.edu>
organization: Naval Research Laboratory
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-03-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <4j2149$ljd@felix.seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael  
Feldman) writes:
> In article <4ism6v$dfr@ra.nrl.navy.mil>,
> Richard Pitre <pitre@n5160d.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
> >
> >If Ada were *manifestly* better then there would be no need to enforce it.
> >Enforcment is the last refuge of the terminaly confused and soon to be
> >extinct. (Contract specification is a different matter, and yes you
> >can spank me for the unattributed misquote.)  
> 
> What do you mean, "contract specification is a different matter?"
> The Ada policy simply says, "if you're writing code for DoD, write
> it in Ada." That is, they're making a global contract requirement.
> There are perfectly decent waiver procedures for cases where Ada does
> not make sense. DoD is paying the piper; they have the privilege of
> calling the tune.
> 
> If DoD wants its ambulances built on HumVee chassis, I'm sure you
> wouldn't dispute their right to say so; it's their (our) money. Simply 
> ignoring the policy and delivering an ambulance built on a Cadillac would 
> be nonresponsive; the PM who accepted a Cadillac would (or ought to)
> be fired.
> 
> >It is true that real educational experiences are very expensive from many 
> >perspectives. Perhaps those who first considered the need for Ada did not
> >correctly assess the cost of a complete solution to the problems that Ada 
> >attempts to address. The federal government should learn from the DoD
> >experience and establish standards and certification mechanisms in areas
> >of software development affecting public safety. 
> 
> I could not agree more; that's an independent issue.
> 
> >No direct enforcement, just support for real education, 
> >standards of performance, and certification. 
> 
> Gimme a break. DoD is buying software for dollars. My dollars and
> yours. If DoD wants to say "write the manuals in English; ask for
> a waiver if, for some reason, you feel you must write in Sanskrit"
> I'm sure you'd run screaming to your congressperson if you heard that
> some contractor wrote manuals in Sanskrit without permission.
> 
> DoD policy is "if you write code for us, write it in Ada. Ask for a
> waiver if you don't think this applies to you. We are paying for this
> stuff, and we therefore have the right to write the specs."
> 
> What on _earth_ is wrong with this?
> 
> My only problem with the policy is the persistent rumors that contractors
> aren't bothering to ask for waivers and are getting away with it. 
> If these rumors are true, it's a scandal. Either it's policy or it ain't.
> 
> I don;t get it. The HumVee issue is clear. The manuals issue is clear.
> What not clear about the Ada issue?
> 

So I think what you are saying is that this Law is working fine and there is no
problem? I assumed there was a problem but your logic is impeccable. I guess
the orignal post was bogus and I responded to a nonissue. My appologies.

richard