* Air Force's Interpretation of Ada "Cost Effective Policy"
@ 1991-04-29 15:37 Michele L. Kee
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Michele L. Kee @ 1991-04-29 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
The following information came from MAJ Thomas J. Croak, AF/SCXS,
(703) 695-9931, croak@sc4.hq.af.mil.
***************************************************************************
The Air Force has published a policy letter stating our
interpretation of the words "where cost effective" in Public Law
101-511, Section 8092, which requires the use of the Ada
programming language. The following is a transcript of the entire
policy letter.
-----------------------Referenced Policy Letter---------------------
05 Apr 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE CHIEF OF STAFF
MAJOR COMMAND AND FIELD OPERATING AGENCY COMMANDERS
PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
SUBJECT: INTERPRETATION OF FY 1991 DOD Appropriations Act-
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
The Congressional language of Public Law 101-511, Section 8092
(Atch 1), requires the use of the Ada programming language "where
cost effective." This memo provides interim Air Force guidance on
the interpretation of this language, pending issuance of
consolidated DOD direction.
Since the Public Law mandates Ada, the determination of
"cost-effectiveness" is interpreted to be the exception and not the
norm. As such, a full lifecycle cost analysis is required only when
a software system is to be developed and the proposed solution is
one which requires a waiver in accordance with my August 7, 1990
memo (which remains fully in effect). Solutions which use COTS
software or other software for which waivers are not required by the
August, 1990 memo are deemed cost-effective for the purpose of
compliance with this law. When computing the lifecycle cost of an
Ada solution, any initial investment in Ada support environments,
tools, training, etc., must be amortized over all future anticipated
Ada projects. In such cases the amortized amount of the total
investment should not exceed 50%, since the investment would be used
for future projects.
Questions on this matter may be referred to Col Hassebrock,
HQ USAF/SCXS, DSN 223-2699.
(SIGNED)
LLOYD K. MOSEMANN, II
Deputy Assistant Secretary
(Communications, Computers &
Logistics)
-----------------------End Referenced Policy Letter--------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Ada 9X Mapping
@ 1991-04-15 14:38 byrne
1991-04-17 0:37 ` Jim Showalter
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: byrne @ 1991-04-15 14:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
-Message-Text-Follows-
I have not seen any discussion on the Ada 9X draft Mapping Document in
this group. Is there another group dedicated to informal 9X rapping as opposed
to the formal comments to the AJPO?
Or does everyone thinks it perfect? 8-)
Dan J. Byrne
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada 9X Mapping
1991-04-15 14:38 Ada 9X Mapping byrne
@ 1991-04-17 0:37 ` Jim Showalter
1991-05-22 19:53 ` Air Force's Interpretation of Ada "Cost Effective Policy" Michele L. Kee
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jim Showalter @ 1991-04-17 0:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
> I have not seen any discussion on the Ada 9X draft Mapping Document in
>this group. Is there another group dedicated to informal 9X rapping as opposed
>to the formal comments to the AJPO?
>Or does everyone thinks it perfect? 8-)
Well, personally I think it's overkill. The current documents are in
a very sketchy state, and they are already large. By the time they
are transmuted into real modifications to the LRM, the LRM will be
twice as large as it already is.
I'm personally a big fan
of subprogram and package types. I also favor getting rid of the
idiot special-cases (e.g. latter declarative items, etc) that make
learning the language more difficult than it needs to be. And I'd
like a few notational conveniences like "return...when" and "raise...
when".
The problem is, MY list isn't necessarily the same as YOUR list: and
our aggregate lists may not include some other person's wish list.
The aggregation of EVERYBODY'S lists results in a huge shaggy baggy
monster of a language revision. What should have been a very quick,
very restricted effort to triage the top 20 complaints has mushroomed
into accomodating just about everybody.
The question we ought to ask ourselves at this point is: what problem
are we really trying to solve? Are we trying to fix some defects in
the original language definition? Fine--by all mean let's do so. Or
are we actually trying to permute Ada into some radically new language,
like, say, C++ or Eiffel? If so, WHY? The putative merits of such
languages for large complex systems are not well-established. I think
they're largely a fad. Do we run off in eleventy-seven different directions
trying to make Ada be all things to all people (something it was never
EVER intended to do), or do we stick with the knitting? Focusing on
finding out WHY many compiler vendors have crappy tasking applications
is probably a far better way to deal with performance issues than is
dragging in a whole new, untried mechanism. If we're going to make the
language be all things to all people, shouldn't we throw in inferencing
for the AI folks, multiple inheritance for the inheritance weenies,
dynamic typing for the terminally confused, etc etc etc?
Hrmph.
--
* The opinions expressed herein are my own, except in the realm of software *
* engineering, in which case I borrowed them from incredibly smart people. *
* *
* Rational: cutting-edge software engineering technology and services. *
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Air Force's Interpretation of Ada "Cost Effective Policy"
1991-04-17 0:37 ` Jim Showalter
@ 1991-05-22 19:53 ` Michele L. Kee
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Michele L. Kee @ 1991-05-22 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
The following information came from MAJ Thomas J. Croak, AF/SCXS,
(703) 695-9931, croak@sc4.hq.af.mil.
***************************************************************************
The Air Force has published a policy letter stating our
interpretation of the words "where cost effective" in Public Law
101-511, Section 8092, which requires the use of the Ada
programming language. The following is a transcript of the entire
policy letter.
-------------------------Referenced Policy Letter---------------------
05 Apr 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR THE VICE CHIEF OF STAFF
MAJOR COMMAND AND FIELD OPERATING AGENCY COMMANDERS
PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
SUBJECT: INTERPRETATION OF FY 1991 DOD Appropriations Act-
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
The Congressional language of Public Law 101-511, Section 8092
(Atch 1), requires the use of the Ada programming language "where
cost effective." This memo provides interim Air Force guidance on
the interpretation of this language, pending issuance of
consolidated DOD direction.
Since the Public Law mandates Ada, the determination of
"cost-effectiveness" is interpreted to be the exception and not the
norm. As such, a full lifecycle cost analysis is required only when
a software system is to be developed and the proposed solution is
one which requires a waiver in accordance with my August 7, 1990
memo (which remains fully in effect). Solutions which use COTS
software or other software for which waivers are not required by the
August, 1990 memo are deemed cost-effective for the purpose of
compliance with this law. When computing the lifecycle cost of an
Ada solution, any initial investment in Ada support environments,
tools, training, etc., must be amortized over all future anticipated
Ada projects. In such cases the amortized amount of the total
investment should not exceed 50%, since the investment would be used
for future projects.
Questions on this matter may be referred to Col Hassebrock,
HQ USAF/SCXS, DSN 223-2699.
(SIGNED)
LLOYD K. MOSEMANN, II
Deputy Assistant Secretary
(Communications, Computers &
Logistics)
- -----------------------End Referenced Policy Letter--------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1991-05-22 19:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1991-04-29 15:37 Air Force's Interpretation of Ada "Cost Effective Policy" Michele L. Kee
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1991-04-15 14:38 Ada 9X Mapping byrne
1991-04-17 0:37 ` Jim Showalter
1991-05-22 19:53 ` Air Force's Interpretation of Ada "Cost Effective Policy" Michele L. Kee
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox