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,bbba36730ac96f9a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Gov't, non-DoD use of Ada Date: 1996/09/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 178980246 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <4vnlgn$mko@uuneo.neosoft.com> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-09-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <50nn37$rpa@uuneo.neosoft.com> rlove@neosoft.com (Robert B. Love ) writes: > In Joe Gwinn wrote: > > The FAA no longer permits Ada on new procurements, subsequent to the > AAS > > debacle. It isn't often one gets to waste $6 billion. Only ANSI C > and > > C++ are permitted, except where existing systems are being modified. > > There was a newsgroup debate on the wisdom of this decision, but the > FAA > > has in fact backed away from Ada. > > Isn't Thomson/France bragging they've done 30-some nation's air traffic > control systems in Ada? Isn't Canada doing theirs now in Ada? Yes - something like that (I don't know about the exact number). Dunno about Canada, but I seem to recall that is also "yes" as well as Australia. > This seems like a clear statement of Ada's suitablility for the task > and against the competence of the AAS managers. Yes sir-ee. I do believe you've got your mind around it. But remember - we're talking about upper level and bean counter management at FAA. A dumber more incompetent bunch of fools would be harder to find. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com