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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e29c511c2b08561c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: stt@henning.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) Subject: Re: Is the "Ada mandate" being reconsidered? Date: 1996/05/14 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 154786509 sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news) x-nntp-posting-host: henning.camb.inmet.com references: <3197f594.11851222@news.interramp.com> organization: Intermetrics, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-05-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Munck (pp000166@interramp.com) wrote: : On Mon, 13 May 1996 07:27:37 +0000, Ken Garlington : wrote: : >Robert Munck wrote: : >>... hardly anyone on the committee ... has come within a mile of developing : >> applications software for the DoD in the last decade. : > : >I believe Maretta Holden would be an exception to this rule, and based : >on personal experience, I don't think she'll have any trouble presenting : >the DoD contractor view of things! : My plea is for people who actually know how projects work, not people : who read status reports, listen to briefings, read (and write) : scholarly academic papers, and more or less believe what they hear. I think that the committee is pretty well balanced between "trench fighters" and "big picture" folks. Admittedly, not all of us have done DoD software development, but pretty much all of us have been in the trenches developing software, and are quite familiar with the sorry state of many "off-the-shelf" software products and components. In any case, at this point the Ada community might want to focus on providing constructive, well documented, input to the committee. : ... : Bob Munck@acm.org -Tucker Taft stt@inmet.com http://www.inmet.com/~stt/ Intermetrics, Inc. Cambridge, MA USA