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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e29c511c2b08561c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dweller@dfw.net (David Weller)
Subject: Re: Is the "Ada mandate" being reconsidered?
Date: 1996/05/08
Message-ID: <4mqbfb$grr@dfw.dfw.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 153870548
references: <4mq7mg$8hs@jake.probe.net>
organization: DFWNet -- Public Internet Access
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-05-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <4mq7mg$8hs@jake.probe.net>,
Howard Dodson <hddodson@probe.net> wrote:
>At the Software Technology Conference held in Salt Lake City last month,
>one of the speakers (Col. Chadwick, USMC) said that a committee was
>being formed, including Dr. Barry Boehm, to consider whether Ada should
>be a mandate for software development for the DoD, and that their 
>findings were due in October '96.  
>
>Does anyone know any more about this committee or have any background
>as to what its charter is?  How do its findings affect whether future
>DoD software projects must be developed in Ada?
>
>Any information about this committee would be greatly appreciated.
>

Not a problem, for those of you wanting to read the greasy details,
here's the web page:  http://www2.nas.edu/cstbweb/index.html

(Actually, the direct link is: http://www2.nas.edu/cstbweb/2252.html )

For those of you wanting the Reader's Digest synopsis:
(From the Scope statement for the study:)
"A study committee will examine the original and current rationales for
using Ada as the standard programming language for DOD weapons systems 
and information systems and will evaluate alternative means of achieving 
the objectives originally desired from Ada: to enhance discipline in DOD 
software engineering activities and to reduce the proliferation of
programming languages in DOD systems. In doing so, the committee will
consider the ways in which the environment for software engineering has 
changed in the two decades since the Ada program was originally established."


This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, in my opinion.  It stands
to reason that the government should periodically reevaluate a
preferred language to determine if it should remain a preferred
language, and to decide what role it should have.

The panel is composed of many professionals that are highly respected
in the computer science community (see the web page).  I, for one,
will have absolutely no problem supporting the recommendations of the
panel.


-- 
    Visit the Ada 95 Booch Components Homepage: www.ocsystems.com/booch
           This is not your father's Ada -- lglwww.epfl.ch/Ada