* re:state of Ada / Paige memo
@ 2007-08-29 20:46 Ed Falis
2007-08-30 4:30 ` state " Jeffrey R. Carter
2007-08-31 11:36 ` anon
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ed Falis @ 2007-08-29 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
By the way, how many of the "overall life cycle cost analyses"
recommended by the memo to decide the right language do you think
actually happened in more than a desultory fashion? I'm not aware of
any, and I've worked for Ada vendors for the last 25 years.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: state of Ada / Paige memo
2007-08-29 20:46 re:state of Ada / Paige memo Ed Falis
@ 2007-08-30 4:30 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2007-08-31 0:48 ` Gary Scott
2007-08-31 11:36 ` anon
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jeffrey R. Carter @ 2007-08-30 4:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
Ed Falis wrote:
> By the way, how many of the "overall life cycle cost analyses"
> recommended by the memo to decide the right language do you think
> actually happened in more than a desultory fashion? I'm not aware of
> any, and I've worked for Ada vendors for the last 25 years.
The fact that this requirement is not enforced is the true evidence of
the DOD's attitude towards Ada and SW eng in general.
--
Jeff Carter
"Don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone I love."
Annie Hall
45
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: state of Ada / Paige memo
2007-08-30 4:30 ` state " Jeffrey R. Carter
@ 2007-08-31 0:48 ` Gary Scott
2007-08-31 1:45 ` jimmaureenrogers
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Gary Scott @ 2007-08-31 0:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:
> Ed Falis wrote:
>
>> By the way, how many of the "overall life cycle cost analyses"
>> recommended by the memo to decide the right language do you think
>> actually happened in more than a desultory fashion? I'm not aware of
>> any, and I've worked for Ada vendors for the last 25 years.
>
>
> The fact that this requirement is not enforced is the true evidence of
> the DOD's attitude towards Ada and SW eng in general.
I deal with DOD a lot. I don't think this is generally true. Industry
rebellion had something to do with it (ready trained supply of C
programmers (er hackers)).
>
--
Gary Scott
mailto:garylscott@sbcglobal dot net
Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com
Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html
If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done.
-- Henry Ford
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: state of Ada / Paige memo
2007-08-31 0:48 ` Gary Scott
@ 2007-08-31 1:45 ` jimmaureenrogers
2007-09-01 2:16 ` Brian Gaffney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: jimmaureenrogers @ 2007-08-31 1:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
On Aug 30, 6:48 pm, Gary Scott <garylsc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> I deal with DOD a lot. I don't think this is generally true. Industry
> rebellion had something to do with it (ready trained supply of C
> programmers (er hackers)).
I have also had some experience with the DoD. Industry rebellion is
not
a valid excuse. DoD Purchasing Organizations can easily require cost
and
quality analyses of chosen tools, including programming languages. The
fact that they do not is an indication that contracts are often
produced
and supervised by very junior officers with little or no experience
in
the field. Those officers learn are taught their jobs by interacting
with
the Industry contractors. Those contractors are adept at feeding loads
of
bovine excrement to the junior officers as though it was real
information.
Similar problems arise in NASA contracts. Most of the engineers who
built
human-rated space vehicles for NASA are retired or dead. The current
crop
of NASA engineers relies upon its contractors to create requirements.
Those contractors make more money when a project requires change
orders
due to faulty requirements, faulty design, faulty implementation, and
schedule slips than they do by producing the desired product according
to
the original contract. Many (not all) contractors do not want to use a
reliable language when more money can be made using an unreliable
language.
Jim Rogers
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: re:state of Ada / Paige memo
2007-08-29 20:46 re:state of Ada / Paige memo Ed Falis
2007-08-30 4:30 ` state " Jeffrey R. Carter
@ 2007-08-31 11:36 ` anon
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: anon @ 2007-08-31 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
J.A. "Drew" Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D who was the last directory of
the Ada Joint Program Office put it the way it was since he
was apart of it.
https://listserv.dtic.mil/listcgi/wa?A2=ind0608&L=it-cop-l&P=2765
Everybody does "overall life cycle cost analyses". In the case of the US
government all departments it is every four to six years, for the long term
analysis but it is every year for the short term aka the fiscal budget.
Every company want to buy the equipment once and unless something
happens to they would like to keep it forever. But in the real world, that
is not so. The office computer hardware is obsolete in 18 months to 2
years. The life of the software depends upon the application.
Microsoft, as a shelf life of 2 to 3 years and at it end it can cause a
complete re-purchasing of all software. Other OSes have different time
table than Microsoft.
An accounting system last until the company's accounting changes, such
as expansion into other business areas or merges with others. Or the
accounting system can become obsolete at the next operating system
release.
Another example is an analyzer system for cars, once these cars are no
longer in the general area, then this system become obsolete. That
might be 5, 10, or even longer. Or it could be immediate, if no one
drives this car in the shops area.
In a true simplistic example, every time one goes to the market they does
a cost analyses. In food, its brand, packing, and flavor. Now in electronic
it might be features version price. And in all case its shelf and usage life.
Like today, buying a VCR when DVDs are replacing VCR. But if price is a
factor or easy of find equipment to play the program on, you might choose
VCR. Because how many grandparents have DVD players. Of course, this
is changing all the time, because what next after HD-DVD. You can make
book on it, there is something and it will make all forms of DVD obsolete.
"overall life cycle cost analyses" is a continual thing that is always being
update by many factors. One factor change it might trigger an action based
on the current "cost analyses" or for others it might take two or three
factor changing to trigger such action.
As for Ada and the E. Paige (retired in 88) memo, well to many friends
listen to their ex boss. They gave his opion more weight in a
government decission than he should of had.
In <PM000438DCAFA0934B@tilopa.unknown.dom>, Ed Falis <falis@verizon.net> writes:
>By the way, how many of the "overall life cycle cost analyses"
>recommended by the memo to decide the right language do you think
>actually happened in more than a desultory fashion? I'm not aware of
>any, and I've worked for Ada vendors for the last 25 years.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: state of Ada / Paige memo
2007-08-31 1:45 ` jimmaureenrogers
@ 2007-09-01 2:16 ` Brian Gaffney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Brian Gaffney @ 2007-09-01 2:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
<jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:1188524716.464116.221000@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 30, 6:48 pm, Gary Scott <garylsc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I deal with DOD a lot. I don't think this is generally true. Industry
>> rebellion had something to do with it (ready trained supply of C
>> programmers (er hackers)).
>
> I have also had some experience with the DoD. Industry rebellion is not
> a valid excuse. DoD Purchasing Organizations can easily require cost and
> quality analyses of chosen tools, including programming languages. The
> fact that they do not is an indication that contracts are often produced
> and supervised by very junior officers with little or no experience in
> the field. Those officers learn are taught their jobs by interacting with
> the Industry contractors. Those contractors are adept at feeding loads of
> bovine excrement to the junior officers as though it was real
> information.
>
Is this related to the people involved or the organizations? If the
purchasing organization is responsible for purchasing only, and the people
move on to the next one once a purchase is complete, life cycle analysis
doesn't have a whole lot of meaning to them. Even if the people wanted to
honestly evaluate it, they typically have no experience in that little phase
after purchase called "maintenance".
You might (or might not) get a different picture if you looked at cases
where the organization responsible for maintenance has a substantial role,
such as upgrades to existing systems.
--Brian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-09-01 2:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-08-29 20:46 re:state of Ada / Paige memo Ed Falis
2007-08-30 4:30 ` state " Jeffrey R. Carter
2007-08-31 0:48 ` Gary Scott
2007-08-31 1:45 ` jimmaureenrogers
2007-09-01 2:16 ` Brian Gaffney
2007-08-31 11:36 ` anon
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox