Re: ADA not dead in DOD

[Richard Ramsey <rramsey@us.net>]

In article <drew.61.2F96763D@cs.tamu.edu>, <drew@cs.tamu.edu> writes:
> Path: 
ns.us.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.tamu.edu!slip9.cs.tamu.edu!dre
w
>
> >In article <51856@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL>,
> >Scott . Smart CDR <sws@mercury.nswses.navy.mil> wrote:
> >>
> Scott>>Just to show that GA and others are not totally correct when they say
> Scott>>that DOD management provides no support for Ada, the following is
> Scott>>from VADM Walt Davis, Dir Space & Electronic Warfare in CNO -- the
> Scott>>buyer for all Navy C4I systems, as quoted in an internal magazine
> Scott>>entitled "CHIPS" (April 1995):
> >>
> Stop.  This gentlemen does not know what he is talking about.  
> 
> James>Stop.  For those who do not get copies of Chips, it's a Navy puff-piece 
> James>meant to compete with STC's CrossTalk, but on a much lower level. 
> 
     << SNIP >> 
> 
> James>articles about user endorsements of various MS-DOS products, and 
> James>how to
> James>do this or that in Windows or Novell, etc.  It's the Navy version of 
> James>PC Computing, filled with editorial opinions from users.
> 
> Which many internal readers find useful.  
> 
> James>(It's something that experts in "C,C++, and Ada from Houston at NASA" 
> James>might find to be academic and stimulating when not expressing 
> James>resentments about Windows NT or bullying others on comp.lang.ada.)
> 
> Nice tacky statement which fails to address Smart's original point.  The Ada 
> situation in Defense Department is dynamic and hardly uniform.   I certainly 
> don't have the "big picture." However, one becomes better informed by getting 
> the views of the senior leadership.   So maybe reading Chips and CrossTalk 
may
> help you pull your head out of your duffel bag if you are sincerely 
interested 
> in Ada usage in the Department of Defense.  

CHIPS is distributed widely in my place of employment.  It's content is widely 
viewed as an indication of Naval Leadership. 


Rick