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: "Kevin J. Weise" Subject: Re: Is the "Ada mandate" being reconsidered? Date: 1996/06/14 Message-ID: <4prtdi$3gs@michp1.redstone.army.mil>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 160171657 references: <4prqqk$4ho@news.sei.cmu.edu> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Redstone Arsenal, Alabama mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit) Date: 1996-06-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: msb@sei.cmu.edu (Mark Bell) wrote: >11-Jun-96 12:12 Michael Levasseur writes > >>COTS - These movement to COTS hass been including move and >>more code that has been written in C++ as well 4GL stuff. > >COTS may not be the panacea that everyone thinks it is. There >are questions to consider with the COTS approach: > [questions deleted] >I'm not saying that COTS is categorically bad; I'm saying that COTS >is not the end all solution to all our problems. > >The allure of saving development time by purchasing COTS software >may be eaten up during integration time when it is discovered that >the software is not robust in your particular application because you >are exercising it in ways the designers did not envision or test for. > Those are all very good questions to ask; and all points are well taken. But it doesn't seem to help weed out one of the most insidious dodges to the use of Ada that I've seen, which is: While chasing project X, implement as much of the project according to req'ts as known at the time under the guise of IR&D, using language Y (or Y++). (After all, IR&D is not convered by *the Mandate*.) Then, during the proposal, offer all this software as COTS! You can probably say that it won't require more than 33% modification, too (to avoid having to convert it to Ada)! Its a dodge that can't be beat :-(. Even if you lose the proposal, the gov't usually refunds a significant amount of the IR&D dev't cost, provided you can show that the IR&D did something useful. >Mark S. Bell 412-268-7925 (Voice) >Software Engineering Institute 412-268-5758 (Fax) >Carnegie Mellon University ** These are my opinions, >4500 Fifth Ave, Pittsburgh PA.,15213 not those of the SEI or CMU ** Kevin J. Weise kweise@c3i-ccmail.sed.redstone.army.mil COLSA Corporation Voice: (205) 842-9680 Huntsville, AL (cute .signature still under construction) (nonetheless, these are *MY* opinions, not those of my employer or SED)