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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site mako.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!tektronix!orca!mako!jans From: jans@mako.UUCP (Jan Steinman) Newsgroups: net.ai,net.lang.lisp,net.lang.ada Subject: Re: Thus spake the DoD... Message-ID: <606@mako.UUCP> Date: Mon, 25-Feb-85 12:08:52 EST Article-I.D.: mako.606 Posted: Mon Feb 25 12:08:52 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 28-Feb-85 13:03:41 EST References: <417@ssc-vax.UUCP> <676@topaz.ARPA> <6982@watdaisy.UUCP> Reply-To: jans@mako.UUCP (Jan Steinman) Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Xref: watmath net.ai:2559 net.lang.lisp:340 net.lang.ada:195 Summary: List-Id: 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 ::::::