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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: 1996/03/29
Message-ID: <4jh3fq$27m@ra.nrl.navy.mil>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 144872385
references: <4jfomp$8h8@felix.seas.gwu.edu>
organization: Naval Research Laboratory
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-03-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <4jfomp$8h8@felix.seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael  
Feldman) writes:
> In article <4jf65c$9k3@ra.nrl.navy.mil>,
> Richard Pitre <pitre@n5160d.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
> >
> >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.
> >
> It would be naive to think the policy (what you are calling the Law)
> is fine. I did not say that. I _did_ make a case - which you evidently
> agree with - that it is quite reasonable, and in some folks' opinion,
> a responsible way to spend our money, for DoD to _have_ a policy.
> 

Well then maybe your logic is impeccable but not comprehensive and there
is a significant problem. Does DoD want to have a well reasoned approach 
or one that is the most constructive and effective in the long term?
A well reasoned approach that do. It is my feeling, based on what
I've read here and the cultural hum, that DoD did not properly
account for the real cost of achieving their goals. 
To the extent that they defined their goal to be the implementation of
a good programming tool then they succeeded. To the extent that they
had a long term problem with the functionality of automated equipment
it remains to be seen if they have solved their problem. 

Laws and policies that facilitate what most people already 
want to do are nice laws. DoD should invest in building an 
environment where everyone is sensitive too and is properly rewarded
for solving their problems. 

> Rumors persist that some (who knows how many?) contractors and program
> managers are simply ignoring the policy; I don;t have any specific
> information. But DoD is a very big complex of organizations (the
> central DoD, the various services, etc.), and in any organization
> that large there will be disagreement on trhe value of various policies,
> and perhaps some outright violations.
> 
> It comes down to whether the right authorities have the resources,
> the will, and the ba**s to enforce policies. 
> 
> Meanwhile, I prefer to concentrate on the interesting  non-defense
> projects for which Ada has been the language of choice: avionics,
> air traffic control, high speed ground transportation, satellites, etc.
> 
> It also makes a great teaching language, as hundreds of profs and
> thousands of students will probably attest.
> 
> Mike Feldman

It looks like a great all around procedural language to me too.
I want it to succeed and I want DoD to nurture it in the best
possible way. It can be a success story about something
that benefited everyone. So this Ada story is largely about the 
economical use of computing power to our economic benefit. DoD
can justify a much greater expenditure just based on the idea that a
strong economy is one assurance of our country's ability to defend 
itself in the long term. Software costs are starting to eat everyone's
lunch.

richard