From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,c3d0e99376a4f379 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!newscon04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr27.news.prodigy.net.POSTED!4988f22a!not-for-mail From: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <1187235764.909133.180650@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> <46c49e6e$1_6@news.bluewin.ch> <46c56070$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net> <46c9516a$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net> <46ca9b4e$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net> <4mRyi.48124$ax1.20564@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <46cd6ac8$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net> <46ce0146$1_5@news.bluewin.ch> Subject: Re: History of Ada - and about the NYU DOS version X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.134.126.233 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net 1194011508 ST000 70.134.126.233 (Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:51:48 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:51:48 EDT Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: FKPO@MONTBWQR]TX\ZIBNFXBWR\HPCTL@XT^OBPLAH[\RWYAKVUOPCW[ML\JXUCKVFDYZKBMSFX^OMSAFNTINTDDMVW[X\THOPXZRVOCJTUTPC\_JSBVX\KAOTBAJBVMZTYAKMNLDI_MFDSSOLXINH__FS^\WQGHGI^C@E[A_CF\AQLDQ\BTMPLDFNVUQ_VM Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:51:48 GMT Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:2705 Date: 2007-11-02T13:51:48+00:00 List-Id: "anon" wrote in message news:kHAzi.457562$p47.69518@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net... > > The last version of the "Walnul Creek Ada" was in 1999. Because in > 1998 the DOD close, "The Ada Joint Program Office". The DOD decided > to use more cheaper versions of computer languages, such as C. This > also means that the "Walnul Creek Ada" 1999 pack was not certified > by the DOD. > The DoD did not decide to use cheaper languages such as C. This incorrect assessment of Mr. Paige's (then Assistant Secretary of Defense) memo lifting the Ada mandate has been widely disseminated. Rather, Mr. Paige opened the door to the use of other languages so Ada would compete on its merits instead of on a strict policy level. In Mr. Paige's memo, he even cited Ada's success along with his belief that, since Ada had proven to be a valuable tool for DoD software, it was now able to stand on its own in the competitive environment of programming language choice. Mr. Paige expressed the hope that Ada would continue to be used for vital DoD software. Many in the DoD and elsewhere misinterpreted Mr. Paige's memo lifting the Ada mandate. Unfortunately, this misinterpretation is now so widespread that many DoD personnel are of the opinion that Ada has been "forbidden" for military software. Somehow, the simple lifting of the mandate has gone through a series of stages: Ada is no longer required; Ada is no longer supported (closing of the AJPO); Ada is no longer to be used; Ada is now forbidden. The reality is that Mr. Paige, and his original DoD memo, foresaw Ada as continuing to serve the needs of military software far into the future, but more as one of a set of options than as the sole [mandated] option. Ada continues to be used for DoD software systems, though not as widely as it once was, primarily due to the misinterpretation of Mr. Paige's memo. Richard Riehle