Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <33239A2B.352A@aonix.com> Dave Wood <dpw@aonix.com> writes:

> I would justify an incentive break based on the logic that Ada 
> presumably provides valuable benefits in life-cycle cost reduction
> and improved reliability (the latter having potential tangential
> cost reduction in human and materiel assets saved due to better
> reliability.)  If the government doesn't really believe that Ada
> saves them money and/ or assets, then why on Earth should they
> either require or prefer it?  So, if the assumption going in is
> that Ada provides such benefit, why not provide the associated 
> incentive to the contractor who is bidding Ada over one who is 
> bidding C?

This makes very good sense.  It is indeed the correct way of looking
at the situation.

> So in short, if the government truly believes that Ada saves money
> over the long term, they should financially incentivize (not mandate)
> the contractors to use it.  If the government does *not* really 
> believe it, then they should simply remove any further reference to 
> Ada in their RFPs and standards and let the market have its way.

Absolutely.  Of course, because this makes so much sense, the likely
hood of it actually being adopted is slim to zero...

/Jon

-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com