Is the "Ada mandate" being reconsidered?

[msb@sei.cmu.edu (Mark Bell)]

"Kevin J. Weise" <kweise@c3i-ccmail.sed.redstone.army.mil> wrote:

>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)!  

I agree, but my post was primarily aimed at comapny X buying COTS from
company Y.  In my parlance, what you are refering to is NDI, since it's
within the same company.  Using NDI (my definition), you might stand
a better chance at mitigating the concerns in my previous post.

Your concerns about the 33% modification is along the same lines that
a previous post made about not using Ada because of memory and/or
timing considerations. If you really don't want to use Ada, you
can probably come up with analysis to prove your desired point, that 
will stand up to the level of questioning to be had at a typical design
review.  




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 **