From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,MISSING_SUBJECT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 13:20:37 -0700 From: mshapiro@manta.nosc.mil (Michael D Shapiro) Message-ID: <9308232020.AA18830@manta.nosc.mil> List-Id: 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)]