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=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 17 May 93 22:20:41 GMT
From: eachus@mitre-bedford.arpa  (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Verdix kisses off Ada
Message-ID: <EACHUS.93May17172041@spectre.mitre.org>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

   In article <SRCTRAN.93May13124224@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gre
gory Aharonian) writes:

  > What will it take for the DoD to see the light and drop the Mandate?

   In article <1060@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes:

  > How about losing a war to an adversary which simply paid the $250 for a
  > copy of Borland C++ at Comp-USA (and whose weapon systems thus all worked)?

     Let's see, what wars were decided recently, and what part did
software play (both Ada and non-Ada).  Oh well, I guess Ted and Greg
didn't want to know the answers after all...

     In the Gulf War, the US had lots of FORTRAN which worked
reasonably well, some Ada, which worked very well indeed, and probably
some COTS C software in the PC's used by the company clerks.  Overall,
it certainly looked like more (Allied) Ada would have resulted in
fewer Allied casualties.  Do either of you have ANY data which would
indicate otherwise?  I'd be very impressed by any details on how
heroic efforts to modify COTS systems written in C or C++ managed to
save the day, or even one life.


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...