reply to Greg's reply

reply to Greg's reply

[SAHARBAUGH]

Greg Aharonian writes:
        Maybe Ted is unsuccessfully trying to say that while Ada is more
safe and reliable to program in than other computer languages and commercial
software products (which is a very desirable for the military), it is not
more cost effective (that is, with different policies, other languages or
off-the-shelf stuff can be used and still meet mission requirements).

I say: You can't get off-the-shelf weapons software.


        A point in his favor, though, is that military specifications and
procedures are excessive.  A good number of soldiers ordered commercial,
off-the-shelf GPS recievers with their credit cards during the Gulf War,
and had no complaints about their operations, especially those whose lives
were saved.  If commercial, off-the-shelf, less mil-spec equipement passed
the test of combat, maybe the DoD software standards are as excessive. 

I say: First, the GPS receiver is just the tip of the iceberg, system-wise. 
There
are numerous satellites in orbit, launch vehicles and systems involved, ground
stations tending them (under Air Force control I believe).  Also I bet that
the commercial receivers were derived from designs paid for by the DoD.

I say: Second, they didn't pass the test of combat.  Remember that in a real
war
Loran, GPS and commercial radio and TV are useless for location.  You need
the right code for Loran, GPS, TACAN etc. and commercial radio goes to moving
virtual source (Conalrad alert)

        Throwing money at Ada as a very safe, reliable system for mission
critical systems is justifiable, giving the lives and freedoms at stake.
Doing so because Ada is more cost-effective is a silly attempt by socialists
to act like captilists.  No one cares, as long as they defend the country.

Yes, on this we agree 100%.

ps: I wish I had that neat software that puts an identifier on each line
of the original message.

sam harbaugh saharbaugh@ROO.FIT.EDU        
-----------