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: 103376,87cdb3ab9d84f71c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: rlove@neosoft.com (Robert B. Love )
Subject: Re: NRC Public Briefing on Ada
Date: 1996/11/05
Message-ID: <55mbt0$3q9@uuneo.neosoft.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 194479098
distribution: world
references: <55eame$t1l@felix.seas.gwu.edu> <55k2qc$qoj@newsbf02.news.aol.com> 
cc: david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com
organization: NeoSoft, Inc.  
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-11-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In <01bbca3c$b0579940$028371a5@dhoossr.iquest.com> "David C. Hoos, Sr." 
wrote:
> There was  considerable discussion of this point.  In fact, the 
language of
> the report appeared to specifically exempt simulations and logistics
> software from the requirement to use Ada -- but there were strenuous
> objections from two Army people to the effect that logistics and 
simulation
> are just as much "warfighting" as is embedded software in the things 
that
> "kill people and break things."

This is pretty absurd.  Simulators and mission planning tools are 
getting
closer together all the time.  The simulator uses the same information
and mostly the same hardware, as the real vehicle.  

As pointed out here by another angered reader, the new High Level 
Architecture
(HLA) for desiging simulators that play together is being planned in 
C++.
How can the DoD make this leap of ill-logic?  More importantly, how can 
I
protest this nonsense?


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