Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada

[progers@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (Pat Rogers)]

In article <18173@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>, mneerach@iiic.ethz.ch (Matthias Ulrich Neeracher) writes:
> In article <2449@sparko.gwu.edu>, mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael
> Feldman) writes:
> > "Sec. 8092. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after June 1, 1991,
> >  where cost-effective, all Department of Defense software shall be written
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >  in the programming language Ada, in the absence of a special exemption
> >  by an official designated by the Secretary of Defense."
> 
> To me, this looks like a rather radical attempt to prohibit further use
> of Ada :-). But then again, has there *ever* been something cost-effective
> produced for the Department of Defense ?
> 

Quite a bit, I would think.  COBOL is not my favorite language, but it would
be difficult not to consider it quite an advance for the times, and cost-
effective over its lifetime.  With respect to Ada, I have seen
a presentation by a fellow consultant to the effect that, once familiar with
the language, a very considerable increase in productivity is typical/possible.
(So it is not just a maintenance issue.)  The distinguishing thing about the 
presentation is that he claims to have the data to prove it -- a database of 
many (>100) projects.  My personal experience with the language (10 years) 
agrees with his assertion.

Pat Rogers
Software Arts & Sciences
progers@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu