Re: Open comment to Ted Holden

[world!srctran@uunet.uu.net (Gregory Aharonian)]

Sam,
	Maybe Ted is unsuccessfully trying to say that while Ada is more
safe and reliable to program in than other computer languages and commercial
software products (which is a very desirable for the military), it is not
more cost effective (that is, with different policies, other languages or
off-the-shelf stuff can be used and still meet mission requirements).
	I do not believe that Ada is more cost effective to program in than
other languages, and I do not believe that anyone can prove that it is,
given the poor understanding of software microeconomics inside the DoD, and
the lack of large enough amounts of cost data and models to prove so. Thus
many of the public posturings about Ada's great cost benefit are of little
worth.  Defend Ada because it is a safer language to program in, not because
of the cost economics.  Maybe that what Ted is saying.
	A point in his favor, though, is that military specifications and
procedures are excessive.  A good number of soldiers ordered commercial,
off-the-shelf GPS recievers with their credit cards during the Gulf War,
and had no complaints about their operations, especially those whose lives
were saved.  If commercial, off-the-shelf, less mil-spec equipement passed
the test of combat, maybe the DoD software standards are as excessive. Also,
many commercial systems developed in other languages successfully handle
commercial mission critical tasks, for example, the programs that handle the
transactions of the stocks, commodities and international monetary exchanges,
each day handling tens of billions of dollars.

	Throwing money at Ada as a very safe, reliable system for mission
critical systems is justifiable, giving the lives and freedoms at stake.
Doing so because Ada is more cost-effective is a silly attempt by socialists
to act like captilists.  No one cares, as long as they defend the country.

Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimization