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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,55ad689dc8c82d8c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: adaworks@netcom.com (AdaWorks) Subject: Re: Ada policy enforcement Date: 1996/03/27 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 144420461 sender: adaworks@netcom3.netcom.com references: <31515445.28DB@lfwc.lockheed.com> <4ism6v$dfr@ra.nrl.navy.mil> organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-03-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert I. Eachus (eachus@spectre.mitre.org) wrote: : The original goal of the HOLWG was to cut the number of languages : that the DoD was paying to maintain compilers, tools, and classes for. : The numbers ranged from about 800 to over 1000 depending on how you : counted... [snip, snip, snip] : Now taking this larger view, trying to eliminate C totally is a : waste of the government's time. (And is in no sense a goal. Good point. We have a customer that has a lot of old Fortran programs that work well, and have worked well for a long time. I believe that mature software that works is often better than new software that has not stood the test of time regardless of what language was use to write it. ONe benefit of the new Ada standard is its hospitality toward this existing source code through pragma Import, pragma Export, and Annex B. It may not be good ecology to engage in a policy of clear-cutting old-growth software. Richard Riehle adaworks@netcom.com -- richard@adaworks.com AdaWorks Software Engineering Suite 27 2555 Park Boulevard Palo Alto, CA 94306 (415) 328-1815 FAX 328-1112