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=0.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_05,TO_NO_BRKTS_PCNT
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 31 Aug 93 19:38:10 GMT
From: world!srctran@uunet.uu.net  (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: Paige interview one more undermining of Ada credibility
Message-ID: <CCn2JM.Jo8@world.std.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

    When Paul Strassman was head of DISA, whenever he was interviewed by
the software industry press, he rarely if ever mentioned Ada, something I
pointed out on comp.lang.ada each time he gave an interview.  Given the
acceptance problems Ada has in the software industry, when Pentagon bigwigs
give interviews, they should do their best to get in a few mentions of Ada,
to put their clout and the clout of the DoD behind Ada.  Strassman never
did this, which made me question his committment to Ada, rightly so given
his post-DoD interveiws where he has said Ada is not cost effective and
should not be the sole DoD language.

    So when Strassman left, and Paige came in, I hoped that maybe things
would change, especially given all of the pro-Ada memos Paige seems to be
issuing INSIDE the Mandated World, since these non-mentions of Ada help to
undermine the credibility of the language.

    Which is why I am so disappointed about Paige's first interview.  In
the August 30, 1993, there is a two page (40-41) interview in InformationWeek
of Emmett Paige in which Ada is not mentioned once, even thought the interview
deals heavily with DoD IS problems.  Not one mention of Ada.  Is this the
Strassman approach all over again?

    For example, he states at one point "I believe we should be looking at
how we can improve the productivity and efficiency of the Defense Department".
Couldn't he have added ", for example, by our standardizing on the Ada
programming language" ?  At another point, he states "Collapsing duplicate
systems should save money.  It won't take you all the way home, but it will
get you 75% of the way".  Couldn't he have added "Another way to save is by
standardizing on one programming language, as in our case, Ada".

    Now maybe he did mention Ada, and the writer didn't publish it, but
not likely, and in any event, he should have stressed at least one mention
of Ada.  Its omission helps to undermine the language's credibility.

    Many people in the software industry watch the happenings around Ada.
All they see is the reports of bickering that appear in magazines like
Governemnt Computer News and Computerworld, or the many interviews where
DoD IS people never seem to mention Ada.  This is lousy PR.  Maybe Paige
doesn't understand this aspect of getting people to adopt a language, and
maybe the people who meet with Paige don't explain this to him, but it has
has to stop now.

    Wherever possible, the mention of Ada by people involved with managing
Ada policy or spending Ada dollars should mention Ada. Anything else gives
people one more reason to choose another language.

-- 
**************************************************************************
 Greg Aharonian                                      srctran@world.std.com
 Source Translation & Optimization                            617-489-3727
 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178