Re: Life Cycle. (was: going to Honolulu)

Re: Life Cycle. (was: going to Honolulu)

[Gregory Aharonian]

>"an earlier" - is this the phantom report again?

   I am giving SEI a chance to figure their screwup on their own, and
come clean by themselves.  A few more weeks though  (timely before Tri-Ada)
and I will help them out.  Hint:  L-I-B-R-A-R-Y.

>This is precisely why the DoD has begun to require information on software
>costs as a line item.  Sounds to me like they working the problem.  What do
>you expect - instant solutions?  Like the national debt will be retired this
>year, too...

Ten years into Ada and they finally get around to doing this, something
the GAO called for over four years ago?  A competent businessmen would
have done this from day one, especially after making such outrageous
claims about the benefits of Ada.  I agree it is a good idea, just ten
years and billions of dollars too late.
-- 
**************************************************************************
 Greg Aharonian                                      srctran@world.std.com
 Source Translation & Optimization                            617-489-3727
 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

Life Cycle. (was: going to Honolulu)

[Karl A. Nyberg]

In article <SRCTRAN.93Aug21002250@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory
 Aharonian) writes:

>>This is precisely why the DoD has begun to require information on software
>>costs as a line item.  Sounds to me like they working the problem.  What do
>>you expect - instant solutions?  Like the national debt will be retired this
>>year, too...
>
>Ten years into Ada and they finally get around to doing this, something
>the GAO called for over four years ago?  A competent businessmen would
>have done this from day one, especially after making such outrageous
>claims about the benefits of Ada.  I agree it is a good idea, just ten
>years and billions of dollars too late.

35 years into software and the DoD is just getting around to recognizing the
problem?  A competent software businessman didn't exist 35 years ago.  And
it's not ten years late - it's 35 years late.  It's not an Ada problem, it's
a DoD problem.  Ada is only causing people to look at the problem.

This issue surfaced years ago when I was involved in the computer security
business and somebody complained that they couldn't use Ada for work with
formal methods because they would have to trust the run time system, which
couldn't possibly be verified.  Never mind that they had been building
trusted systems in other languages that didn't have verified run time
systems - they were using this excuse for not using Ada, but not for not
using other languages.

Stop blaming Ada for problems that aren't its fault.

-- Karl --
-- 
Karl Nyberg			-- karl@grebyn.com
Grebyn Corporation		-- 1-703-281-2194
P. O. Box 497			-- Yes, I speak for the company.
Vienna, VA 22183-0497		-- I own it.