Re: Is the "Ada mandate" being reconsidered?

[bowmanc@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us (Carl Bowman)]

Sections snipped for brevity.

NOTE: In this post I am not speaking for either the AJPO or the AdaIC.
No part of this post may be considered DoD, AJPO or AdaIC policy.  If
you have questions about such policy, send email to me and I will
forward the email to the appropriate party, or you may contact the
AJPO or AdaIC directly.

In article <4ppceg$gha@gde.GDEsystems.COM>,
Tom Robinson  <robinson@gdesystems.com> wrote:
>fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) wrote:
>>Tom Robinson <robinson@gdesystems.com> writes:
>>>[someone writes]:

...Snip!

>>>
>>>Is it really?  When I look at the Ada 95 validated compiler list it 
>>>looks pretty small to me.  So you're saying that gnat is available as
>>>long as I am willing to pay for a validation and arrange for maintenence
>>>or do it myself.  
>>

When Ada83 was young, we would often suggest potential users should
contact vendors with similar compilers and arrange derived
validations.  I think such requests from the user community alerted
vendors to which compilers to prioritize on their validation list.  I
don't think in EVERY case the cost of validation was paid for by the
user, but I plead ignorance in this matter.

...Snip!

>>
>
>Ah, well perhaps I am too tied to the "old" Ada business.  It used to be that
>before you could claim you even had a product you would perform a validation
>on the compiler.  This put you on the "validated compilers list", a form
>of advertising.  

This is news to me!  There were plenty of conferences I attended where
a vendor would announce a new Ada compiler was validated that had not
completed the full validation process.  I would have the official list
with me!

...Snip!

>And, *I thought*, that the DOD was required to use validated compilers.  But
>I could be wrong on that.  But *if it does*, then in order to sell to the DOD
>companies would need to be on the validation list.  Since the list is 
>extremely
>small when compared to Ada 83 I use it as the measure of how far along the
>Ada 95 market is today.  One measure of how successful Ada 95 is will be how
>fast that list grows in the next 12 months as the gnat and AdaMagic based
>compilers start hitting the market.
>
>Tom Robinson
>

For the moment, Ada 83 compilers are still validated compilers.  See
Hon. Emmett Paige, Jr.'s memo for guidance on use of non-validated
compilers that plan to become validated.  (AdaIC form P145) You can
start development with a compiler that is not currently validated, as
long as delivery is with a validated compiler.

PERSONALLY ( and some of my colleagues will surely disagree) - I don't
see the growth of the validated compilers list as a measure of Ada
95's success at all.  That is mearly a measure of the Ada 95 compilers
that have been officially validated.  

Nothing would please me more than to see Ada 95 used universally -
validated when conditions require, and non-validated when acceptable.
Why in the world use validated compilers for education, personal use,
or in-house commercial products where portability and standardization
are not an issue?  A few compiler companies had non-validatd education
versions of their compilers.  I can tell you non-validated GNAT is
doing a lot for Ada's re-emergence.

I think many commercial users would use a compiler that guaranteed
compliance and support, but didn't officially validate.

If we use validation as a measure of success, surely C and C++ must be
dismal failures.

- Carl Bowman

NOTE: In this post I am not speaking for either the AJPO or the AdaIC.
No part of this post may be considered DoD, AJPO or AdaIC policy.  If
you have questions about such policy, send email to me and I will forward
the email to the appropriate party, or you may contact the AJPO or
AdaIC directly.