Re: ADA not dead in DOD

Re: ADA not dead in DOD

[Drew Hamilton]

In article <3mmh6i$11o@stout.entertain.com> cjames@stout.entertain.com (Colin James III) writes:
>From: cjames@stout.entertain.com (Colin James III)
>Subject: Re: ADA not dead in DOD
>Date: 14 Apr 1995 13:08:02 -0600

>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. 

Clearly you don't read CrossTalk or Chips regularly or you would know that
they hardly compete.  Not sure what kind of insult you are leveling with the 
puff-piece comment, but as CDR Smart said, it is an internal magazine.  
Neither CrossTalk nor Chips aspire to be a refereed research journal.  Both
provide useful information to military personnel.   

James>For example, the April issue has a picture of a Vice Admr on the 
James>cover, and 

So what? 

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.  


Drew Hamilton 
*************************************************
   Drew Hamilton                               
   drew@cs.tamu.edu
*************************************************

Re: ADA not dead in DOD

[Drew Hamilton]

I was remiss in not thanking CDR Smart for providing an example of Ada
support.  Responses such as those from Colin James, III really annoy me.
I suppose Mr. James thinks VADM Davis' comments would be more 
creditable if they were published in the CACM.   

If Mr. James is interested in Ada usage in the military departments, he might
want to read the internal publications he denigrates.  Neither present a 
complete picture of Ada in the DoD, but both contribute to getting that 
picture.  Then in fact I could respond to his posts without the upfront 
warning that clearly Mr. James doesn't know what he is talking about.  

Drew 
*************************************************
   Drew Hamilton                               
   drew@cs.tamu.edu
*************************************************

Re: ADA not dead in DOD

[Richard Ramsey]

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