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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_DATE,
	LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d1da37f65aa5984e,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-02 22:23:18 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!uunet!world!srctran
From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: Army endorses a C++ object database
Message-ID: <Cyn6sE.Ivs@world.std.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 13:29:01 GMT
Date: 1994-11-02T13:29:01+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


    The November 7th Information Week, page 48, has an article on the growing
interest in object oriented technologies.  Part of the article deals with why
the German automaker Daimler-Benz recently invested $5 million dollars in the
object oriented C++ database company Ontos.  Given that Daimler-Benz is a
$56 billion dollar conglomerate, this is no rash decision.

    The article includes a variety of major companies recounting happy
experiences with such C++ based technologies, including Fidelity, and Pacific
Gas & Electric, and the U.S. Army.  The U.S. Army??????   I quote:

	"The Army's Strategic Logistics Agency uses an object database
	to reduce the cost of repairing and replacing goods by keeping
	better track of all equipment and other items in storage in an
	Ontos database.

	The system, currently being tested, provides Army managers a
	global view of all resources, item status, and location.  This
	allows them to quickly gather information for repair-or-buy
	decisions.  During a 90-day test earlier this year, the system
	saved $500,000 in repairs and replacement expenses.  The Army
	estimates it will save $4.4 million over the course of one year
	at the three bases in the test.  Significantly higher savings
	are expected in 1995, when the Army will add the system at 30
	additional sites.

(Nice of the Army to agree to be interviewed for this article, and lend
their credibility to endorsing this C++ product).

How much you want to bet that the "glue" software for this Army use of ONTOS
databases wasn't written in Ada, but rather C++?  This is a classic example
of the silliness that would entail if the Ada Mandate was strictly enforced
along with Perry's COTS memo, as this Army effort would have had to incur
extra costs dealing with writing lots of Ada headers to ONTOS routines, if
such a things was possible (storing Ada objects in a C++ object database).

Unless the DoD is willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to have
developed in Ada much of the capabilities available in C++ COTS products,
Perry's COTS memo will continue to be in contradiction to the Ada Mandate,
no matter how much handwaving and memo writing is tried.

I just wish the Army Signal Corps would go public with one of their C++
successes :-)

Greg Aharonian