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: 103376,7961088baf0e34d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Richard Riehle Subject: Re: AIA Position on Ada Date: 1996/08/28 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 177148139 references: <321DA0F3.34BC@lmtas.lmco.com> content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII organization: National University, San Diego mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-08-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: From: Richard Riehle Subject: AIA Position on Ada The AIA position is long on text and short on insight. There is no good reason for the DoD to abandon its current Ada policy. It is reminiscent of "sound and fury" but adds up to not much in substance. 1) The single-language policy along with a set of properly administered waiver procedures is still correct. 2) No one has yet made the case, nor can they make the case, that some class of software problems cannot be solved in Ada. In fact, Ada has now been used successfully for nearly every kind of application, on nearly every operating system and and hardware platform in existence. 3) The burden of proof should be on those who insist Ada cannot do the job, not the other way around. 4) This is exactly the wrong time to abandon Ada policy. With the increasing disaffection with C++ and no other serious language (except, perhaps Eiffel) coming close to Ada, why would the DoD take such a major risk. 5) "sound and fury," indeed! Richard Riehle