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,bbba36730ac96f9a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: rlove@neosoft.com (Robert B. Love )
Subject: Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada
Date: 1996/09/05
Message-ID: <50nn37$rpa@uuneo.neosoft.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 178754272
references: <4vnlgn$mko@uuneo.neosoft.com>
 <gwinn-0509961642430001@smc19.ed.ray.com>
organization: NeoSoft, Inc.  
cc: gwinn@res.ray.com
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In <gwinn-0509961642430001@smc19.ed.ray.com> Joe Gwinn wrote:
> The FAA no longer permits Ada on new procurements, subsequent to the 
AAS
> debacle.  It isn't often one gets to waste $6 billion.  Only ANSI C 
and
> C++ are permitted, except where existing systems are being modified. 
> There was a newsgroup debate on the wisdom of this decision, but the 
FAA
> has in fact backed away from Ada.

Isn't Thomson/France bragging they've done 30-some nation's air traffic
control systems in Ada?  Isn't Canada doing theirs now in Ada?  This 
seems
like a clear statement of Ada's suitablility for the task and against
the competence of the AAS managers.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Love, rlove@neosoft.com (local)        MIME & NeXT Mail OK
rlove@raptor.rmnug.org  (permanent)        PGP key available
----------------------------------------------------------------