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=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 29 Sep 93 04:54:14 GMT From: world!srctran@uunet.uu.net (Gregory Aharonian) Subject: Re: DoD dumps mainframe for PC network using C software Message-ID: List-Id: > > Here we see why Ada is in so much trouble, when an office deep in the > > Pentagon can develop two large, heavily used systems using C-based COTS > > software and C-based application development. This system could have been > > done in Ada, had they cared and respected the Ada Mandate... > Greg, read the policies carefully before making statements like >this. While I would have preferred that Ada had been used, the >policies are designed to enourage use of, existing software, COTS >software and SQL. All of the various Ada policies have exceptions >designed to avoid conflicts with these other policies. This looks to >me like an example of complying with government mandates, not of >ignoring them. To me, this looks like a case of conflicting mandates. What happens when all DoD software needs can be met cost-effectively by COTS software, none of which is done in Ada? Then one mandate, COTS, effectively renders useless another mandate, Ada. Think of the following domains: communications, networking, databases, GUI, parallel processing, expert systems, natural language analysis, multimedia, CALS, VHDL, SGML, EDI, etc. Such software applications make up a large fraction of DoD programming that cannot be done more cost effectively in Ada - the COTS stuff is just too good too well priced. When such a large percentage of DoD needs can be met with non-Ada costs products, the all encompassing nature of the Ada Mandate (which does say ALL DOD PROGRAMMING) becomes irrevelant. So sure, I want DoD officials to be cost effective. It's just that the assumptions made about Ada's cost effectiveness vis-a-vis other languages made many years ago are no longer true, and thus the rationale for the all encompassing Ada mandate. The problems is not COTS, nor the Ada language, but unrealistic assumptions underlying the Mandate. Either redefine it or drop it, but as it is, it is only followed when it is convenient. Greg -- ************************************************************************** Greg Aharonian srctran@world.std.com Source Translation & Optimization 617-489-3727 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178