From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_40 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 4 Jun 93 04:42:37 GMT From: world!srctran@uunet.uu.net (Gregory Aharonian) Subject: Re: In Defense of the Mandate Message-ID: List-Id: > I claim that an arbitrary embedded system (J) written in Ada is >(on average) easier for an independent programming team to understand and >subsequently enhance than one written in any previous language. Thus, >it is easier for independent programming teams to create variants of that >system (J', J'', J'''.....) than it would be if J were written in some older >language. That capability is needed if we have to fight protracted conflicts >like World War II, Korea, or VietNam. Unfortunately, a growing number of real soldiers disagree with you, and are using C/C++. For example, there was that Army group involved with JINTACCS that developed a fielded communications system in C++ using Motif. Or people trhoughout the Air Force using C++ for database development. And if you saw Ralph Craft's comment in Government Computer News, you will understand that this use of C/C++ is common by people in the Armed Services. What is hurt Ada is that the DoD has refused to fund a truly honest assessment of the microeconomics of defense software development vis-a-vis Ada and C/C++. The old Mosemann critiques were a joke, the new ones probably not that much better, and people will continue to make decisions based on meaningless data. Also, given Bosnia, the protracted conflicts arguments is kind of moot. Greg Aharonian -- ************************************************************************** Greg Aharonian Source Translation & Optimization P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178