Re: Ichbiah's letter to Anderson: Here it is

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

Tuck writes:

>At this point, rather than harping on the many mistakes of the
>Ada community in the past, we should begin focusing on how
>to improve things in the future.  I believe that Chris Anderson
>of the 9X project office is doing just that.  AdaNet and the AdaIC
>also both seem to be taking a more proactive role in trying to
>spread the word.  Other government-sponsored Ada-related organizations,
>such as ASSET, seem still to be in a "hunkered-down" or "come-find-us"
>mode, which is admittedly a shame.  Of course if they don't read
>comp.lang.ada, perhaps we need to find a more constructive way
>to wake them up than via periodic flames.  
   ( If they don't read comp.lang.ada, they should be fired.  These
efforts are not on the job training programs on how to exchange
information in the electronic era.  Let more qualified people run
these efforts. )


   Since current policy is being made by many of those who made the
mistakes in the past, it is very important to harp on these issues.
I am Bayesian, and by arguing that the past is a good predictor of the
near future, I would say Ada is in deep trouble.
   The Ada9X office has no idea of the true views of Ada in the non-Mandated
world, either the raw demographics of acceptance and usage, or in terms
of public opinion.  I will bet you an all-chocolate ice cream sundae at
the Friendly's on Concord ave that the Ada9X office does not have and
has not funded any sort of marketing/demographic survey of Ada usage and
recognition outside the Mandate world.  The office is developing
policy in the blind.  Chris Anderson's comments in Utah were way off
the mark when it comes to non-Mandated OO interest in Ada.

   AdaNet, ASSET, VCOE and the rest of them are all bureaucratic
enterprises gathering little real-world business experience to help
future Ada efforts.   If you want to see this first hand, ask ASSET
for their components schema and look at it from a free market point
of view - their schema would make Karl Marx happy, not Adam Smith.
It's a shame no one is overseeing what is going on at ASSET.  To
rest any of Ada's future on these efforts is to admit defeat now.

    There is a much simpler way to resolve all of these issues and
eliminate my endless pestering of everyone on c.l.a:  first get the
DoD to factor life-cycle mainentance and support costs properly into
contracts, and then get rid of the Ada Mandate.  Let market forces
decide who is right and ensure that the DoD gets the most cost 
effective support to meets its development needs.
    The defenders of free markets and capitalism should not rely on
such a socialist piece of legislation as the Mandate.  Isn't that why
we spent this country into debt fighting the Cold war?

Greg Aharonian

P.S. I don't do lunch, so I will want to collect my sundae after work.

-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178