From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7224d5facf10c9b5,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-28 21:12:06 PST
Path: 
 nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!paladin.american.edu!auvm!COMPUSERVE.COM!73672.2025
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Message-ID: <941029004757_73672.2025_DHR55-1@CompuServe.COM>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 20:47:58 EDT
Sender: Ada programming language <INFO-ADA@NDSUVM1.BITNET>
From: Ken Garlington <73672.2025@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: Ada Waiver
Date: 1994-10-28T20:47:58-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Gregory Aharonian <srctran@WORLD.STD.COM> writes:

<< I would add some marginal value, shrink wrap some diskettes, put it on my
shelf, and sell it back to the contractor, who could then validly argue that
the software is COTS. >>

Hmmm... whenever we propose COTS, the first question out of our SPO's mouth is,
"Will the vendor sign an MOU to support the COTS for the ful life cycle?" If
you were proposing this, then I would say that the DoD should definitely take
you up on your offer, since then their PDSS costs are dramatically reduced -- a
main point of COTS, right?

<< But thanks to the language-schizo folks at Rational, a ready waiver
justification is on hand.  For if you read Rational's literature and technical
reports, they repeatedly argue that with Rational's tools that you can program
as cost effectively over the life cycle in C++ as you can in Ada >>

This is true _if_ the "you" is the same throughout the life cycle. That is,
that the developer will also be the maintainer. I assume that Rational is
making this sort of assumption in their literature. (In fact, this argument
helped justify a waiver for an F-22 component.) But if the "you" is _not_ the
same, then I doubt the waiver will "fly through unopposed."

<< One could argue in the broad sense that these "paintings" aren't source code
and therefore not subject to 3405.1 and 5000.2. >>

My memory is not good, but I seem to recall at least one of these directives
addresses 4GLs explicitly, and requires an exception for them if they don't
produce Ada.


The real issue is the procurement office. If they understand the purpose of
Ada, bad exceptions/waivers aren't going to be issued regardless of the wording
of DoD memos. If they don't, then arguing over the definition of COTS, etc.
won't be necessary.

I'm also happy to hear that _my_ chosen area of expertise isn't just writing
"glue" for COTS, like the typical DoD application. Sounds like a boring gig to
me...