comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: jans@mako.UUCP (Jan Steinman)
Subject: Re: Thus spake the DoD...
Date: Mon, 25-Feb-85 12:08:52 EST	[thread overview]
Date: Mon Feb 25 12:08:52 1985
Message-ID: <606@mako.UUCP> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 6982@watdaisy.UUCP


I think many of you are either missing the boat completely, or have not
actually read the DOD directives.  Although I don't have them in front of me,
(and am, therefore, guilty of what I am accusing others) I can recall quite
clearly that the original directive refered to *embedded systems* entering
*advanced development* by a certain date.  Once DOD gained confidence in Ada,
a more general directive refering to all *mission critical systems* which
were *entering advanced development* by a certain date was issued.

Everyone seems to be on to the *embedded systems* part, but examine the
implications of the other two phrases:

1) "entering advanced development by..."  No one is suggesting that huge,
	presumably working FORTRAN or Lisp programs will be re-written in Ada!
	If a new system entering advanced development depends on previously
	written code in some other language, Ada is flexible enough that an
	interface can be written so the previous code can appear as an Ada
	package.  Of course, unscrupulous DOD contractors may use this as an
	excuse to soak the DOD for a needless re-write, but that's another
	issue...

2) "all mission critical systems..."  There is certain latitude in the
	interpretation of this phrase, but it is much larger in scope than
	"embedded systems".  Until Ada expertise is widespread, I suspect this
	means that if two organizations bid a job, one using Lisp, the other
	Ada, the Ada bidder will get the job.  Note that everything is a
	"mission" in military jargon -- if a soldier's duty is to compile a
	program, the compiler is "mission critical".

The services differ greatly in embracing Ada.  Those who want or need to work
in the military-industrial complex and are unwilling or unable to learn an
exciting new language should probably start looking for Navy contracts and
avoid Air Force work at all costs.  (The Army falls in between, but is much
closer to the AF's enthusiasm for Ada than the Navy's grudging acceptance.)
-- 
:::::: Jan Steinman		Box 1000, MS 61-161	(w)503/685-2843 ::::::
:::::: tektronix!tekecs!jans	Wilsonville, OR 97070	(h)503/657-7703 ::::::

  parent reply	other threads:[~1985-02-25 17:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
1985-02-14 15:59 Thus spake the DoD Frederick J Dickey
1985-02-17  1:58 ` Robert Hofkin
1985-02-17 16:36 ` g-frank
1985-02-18  5:18   ` Skef Wholey
1985-02-18 14:33 ` Chuck Hedrick
1985-02-19 19:09   ` Daniel J. Salomon
1985-02-22  2:21     ` LISP &c (re: the DoD...) Thomas M. Breuel
1985-02-25 17:08     ` Jan Steinman [this message]
1985-02-26 23:20     ` Thus spake the DoD Stanley Shebs
1985-02-27 19:22       ` Daniel J. Salomon
1985-03-01 19:30         ` Stanley Shebs
1985-03-01 20:13         ` neves
1985-03-02  4:33         ` Thomas M. Breuel
1985-03-02 18:35           ` Efficiency of LISP Marty Sasaki
1985-03-03  0:23         ` Language criticism Greg Davidson
1985-03-06 14:13         ` Thus spake the DoD geb
1985-02-28  3:16       ` David Schachter
1985-03-01 19:00         ` Stanley Shebs
1985-03-03  3:08         ` Joaquim Martillo
1985-03-03  6:12         ` T J Jardine
1985-03-05 16:55           ` Jan Steinman
1985-03-05 21:07           ` Robert A. Pease
1985-03-12  1:47           ` Ed Colbert
1985-03-13 19:35       ` Monique M Taylor
1985-03-17 19:49         ` Jan Steinman
1985-03-21  1:17           ` faustus
1985-03-12  0:25     ` Efficiency of LISP Stavros Macrakis
1985-03-12  2:11     ` Efficiency of numerical Lisp code (details) Stavros Macrakis
1985-03-13  7:05     ` Chuck Hedrick
1985-03-13 20:00     ` Speed with numbers: PDP-10 Maclisp vs. Fortran (details) Stavros Macrakis
1985-03-14 10:12       ` Tim Maroney
1985-03-15  0:27         ` Bill Henneman
1985-03-16  0:59           ` Tim Maroney
1985-03-17 18:58             ` Bill Henneman
1985-03-18  5:02               ` Multi-language systems Marty Sasaki
1985-03-20 17:01                 ` Tom Slack
1985-03-18 21:24               ` Speed with numbers: PDP-10 Maclisp vs. Fortran (details) Tim Maroney
1985-03-19  6:45                 ` Fortran better than Lisp for numerical code? Barry Margolin
1985-03-19 17:35                   ` Speed of Lisp numerical code Stavros Macrakis
1985-03-20 21:04                   ` Fortran better than Lisp for numerical code? T J Jardine
1985-03-22  2:10                     ` Joe Orost
1985-03-19 16:15                 ` Speed with numbers: PDP-10 Maclisp vs. Fortran (details) Bill Henneman
1985-03-19  3:40               ` Norman Diamond
1985-03-18  3:01             ` Common Lisp and Arrays Joaquim Martillo
1985-02-18 23:49 ` Thus spake the DoD M.Fischer
1985-03-14 20:50 ` Speed with numbers: PDP-10 Maclisp vs. Fortran (details) Stavros Macrakis
1985-03-15 15:42 ` Stanley Shebs
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1985-02-15 14:34 Thus spake the DoD Frederick J Dickey
replies disabled

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox