(no subject)

[Michael D Shapiro]

In article <1993Aug19.222048.24966@nosc.mil>  sampson@cod.nosc.mil
      (Charles H. Sampson) writes, regarding the Ada mandate:
 
>      That's what the mandate is trying to do.  It's telling the military
> types who are in a 3-year tour of duty at the beginning of a 30-year project,
> "You can use another language if you can demonstrate a cost savings over all
> 30 years.  Otherwise, we don't want to hear about the amount that can be
> saved during your watch."  If only they would can an Admiral or General or
> two for ignoring the mandate.  (I have a nominee.)

I have no doubt that, at the moment, Ada is likely the best candidate
language for huge (in size or duration) projects.  But most software
written today isn't for these huge projects.  Some people say that Ada
is too formal for smaller projects, where languages such as Fortran,
COBOL, Pascal, C, or C++, have shown to be effective.  In such cases
another language may prove more cost effective than Ada.

Since many "military types" may not have the background to decide,
perhaps we really should help find guidelines to answer the question,
"What is the minimum size or duration project for which Ada is the most
cost effective language?"  Those guidelines could make the mandate
workable.  Of course, none of us may have the answer to that question
yet.  But to me it seems to be the real question we should explore.

========================================================================
Michael D. Shapiro, Ph.D.                      e-mail: mshapiro@nosc.mil
NCCOSC RDT&E Division (NRaD) Code 411            San Diego CA 92152-7560
Voice: (619) 553-4080         FAX: (619) 553-4808          DSN: 553-4080
   [Until January 1992 we were the Naval Ocean Systems Center (NOSC)]