(unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

(unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[Sam Harbaugh, Palm Bay, Florida]

I received this but can not vouch for its authenticity.  Anybody know if
its true? I have erased the to: addresses.

I hope that I am not being duped.

sam harbaugh, palm bay, florida

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paige, Emmett Jr., , OSD/C3I +
To: .....
Cc: ......
Subject:  "ADA and BEYOND"
Date: Thursday, February 27, 1997 10:03AM

AS YOU KNOW WE HAD THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES,NATIONAL RESEARCH
COUNCIL COMPUTER SCIENCE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOARD PERFORM A STUDY OF
OUR SOFTWARE POLICIES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
    HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE BEEN BRIEFED ON THE RESULTS OF THAT STUDY AND
POSSIBLY READ AND REREAD THE PUBLISHED REPORT AS I HAVE.
THE STUDY IS A GOOD ONE AND I AM PREPARED TO ACCEPT AND IMPLEMENT ALL OF
THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS WITH ONE EXCEPTION.
I BELIEVE DOD SHOULD NO LONGER REQUIRE ADA FOR  ANY OF ITS SYSTEMS BUT
CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IT AS THE PREFERRED LANGUAGE,PARTCULARLY FOR  OUR
WEAPON SYSTEMS AND C4ISR SYSTEMS.  BY DOING THIS WE WILL TAKE THE LONE
CONTENTIOUS POINT   OF RESENTMENT OUT OF THE DOD SOFTWARE PROCESS , BUT
WITH THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS SUCH AS THE REQUIREMENT FOR A SOFTWARE
ENGINEERING PLAN, I BELIEVE WE WILL GET THE DESIRED RESULTS WITHOUT
MANDATING ANY PARTICULAR PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE.
I WILL HAVE THE STAFF BEGIN THE ACTION TO PREPARE THE PROPOSED  DOD
SOFTWARE POLICY AS REFLECTED IN APPENDIX  A,  WHICH BEGINS ON PAGE 75 OF
THE STUDY REPORT, AND AMEND IT AS STATED ABOVE TO REMOVE THEIR PROPOSED
MANDATE FOR WARFIGHTING SYSTEMS.
WE WILL PREPARE THE POLICY DIRECTIVE FOR SIGNATURE BY  BOTH DR KAMINSKI
AND ME.  WILL GET THIS ONE ON A FAST TRACK.
WOULD APPRECISATE ANY COMMENTS OR REACTIONS FROM THIS PROPOSAL FROM ANY
ADDRESSEES.



...... name and fax number etc were here .......


From: Paige, Emmett Jr., , OSD/C3I +
To: .......
Subject: FW:  "ADA and BEYOND"
Date: Thursday, February 27, 1997 10:15AM

HOPE YOU ARE NOT SURPRISED.
I WILL SUPPORT THE 15M INVESTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS. THATS THE OVERNIGHT
CHANGE.


> >>>----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
...... removed ....

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[Robert Dewar]

The idea of making Ada a preferred technology rather than mandating it
might very well be advantageous even from an Ada advocate's point of view.
Far too often now, Ada is mandated, but in practice someone is acting as
though some other technology is preferred. A genuine policy of preferring
Ada, other things being equal, might well be preferable. For example,
this would mean that hardware supporting Ada should be preferred over
hardware that does not support Ada.

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[Dave Wood]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> The idea of making Ada a preferred technology rather than mandating it
> might very well be advantageous even from an Ada advocate's point of view.
> Far too often now, Ada is mandated, but in practice someone is acting as
> though some other technology is preferred. A genuine policy of preferring
> Ada, other things being equal, might well be preferable. For example,
> this would mean that hardware supporting Ada should be preferred over
> hardware that does not support Ada.


I agree.  I have often thought that the best way to ensure contractors
will want to use Ada is not to (sorta, kinda) require it, but 
to give them financial incentive.  The most obvious way to do this,
it seems to me, is to fix the acquisition process such that a 
contractor bidding Ada will have (say) a 20% advantage on their
software bid over a contractor bidding another language.  I think
you'd have to duck to miss the stampede of contractors bidding Ada.

With a proper acquisition process, we wouldn't need no steenking
mandate.  (Sorry, couldn't resist...)

Once wayward contractors come back to Ada and find that the new 
generation of tools if fast, powerful, easy to use, and 
cost-effective, they'll start to forget some of their early 
experiences.

My humble opinion.

-- Dave Wood
-- Product Manager, ObjectAda for Windows
-- Aonix - "Ada with an Attitude"
-- http://www.aonix.com

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[Robert S. White]

In article <332231F7.470E@aonix.com>, dpw@aonix.com says...

>Once wayward contractors come back to Ada and find that the new 
>generation of tools if fast, powerful, easy to use, and 
>cost-effective, they'll start to forget some of their early 
>experiences.

  Some contractors have not stumbled from the "way" but do find that the 
efforts of your company, Aonix, and that of the GNAT project have made
Ada viable for desktop applications where the DoD mandate does not apply 
(internal IR&D and Non-Developmental Item projects).  I have seen several
orders for your ObjectAda going to purchasing recently.  It will be very 
interesting to see what the metrics show for ObjectAda versus Visual C++.

  Yours and ACT's (Dewar/Kenner) support in solving problems and helping 
others  on the Usenet and web is certainly a factor.  Thanks :-)
_______________________________________________________________________
Robert S. White                    -- an embedded sys software engineer
				   -- speaking for myself only!

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[Dave Wood]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> 
> I agree that Ada is tainted by the reputation that the only reason for
> using it would be a government requirement.  I believe, however, that
> a 20% advantage would give the same bad reputation.  (Saying something
> is due to a government requirement these days is not the way to gain
> public support.)
> 
> But if we agree that Ada is superior for maintainability and correctness,
> I would think a more fair mechanism for government would be to have those
> bidders choose their language knowing that they (the bidder) will have the
> burden of the "life cycle costs" and will have exposure for any damages
> based on (in-)correctness issues.

The problem is that it is hard to imagine the above being enacted,
because the temptation will be too great to provide the lowest up-front
bid (i.e., cut corners everywhere possible).  Contractors understandably
want to get the contract first and worry about how to fulfill it later,
and the acquisition office is similarly pressured to take the lowest
credible bid.  For major, long-term programs, the program office
turns over many times before anyone gets to the accountability
stage (and most likely on the contractor side as well), and this is 
why the incentive needs to be applied up front.  If Congress
assigns the incentive factor (e.g., 20%), then both the contractor
and the program office are off the pressure cooker to take the
path of least resistance.

I would justify an incentive break based on the logic that Ada 
presumably provides valuable benefits in life-cycle cost reduction
and improved reliability (the latter having potential tangential
cost reduction in human and materiel assets saved due to better
reliability.)  If the government doesn't really believe that Ada
saves them money and/ or assets, then why on Earth should they
either require or prefer it?  So, if the assumption going in is
that Ada provides such benefit, why not provide the associated 
incentive to the contractor who is bidding Ada over one who is 
bidding C?

This is kind of analogous to the logic for a capital gains tax cut.
The theory is that cutting this tax will entail an up-front cost
in the form of initially reduced revenue, but the loss will be more
than made up in heavier entrepreneurial investment and long-term
economic expansion.  If you believe the theory, then voting for the
revenue hit makes sense.  If you don't believe the theory, well,
then don't pretend like you really do.

So in short, if the government truly believes that Ada saves money
over the long term, they should financially incentivize (not mandate)
the contractors to use it.  If the government does *not* really 
believe it, then they should simply remove any further reference to 
Ada in their RFPs and standards and let the market have its way.

-- Dave Wood (speaking for myself)
-- Product Manager, ObjectAda for Windows
-- Aonix - "Ada with an Attitude"
-- http://www.aonix.com

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <332231F7.470E@aonix.com>, Dave Wood <dpw@aonix.com> writes:
> Robert Dewar wrote:
>> 
>> The idea of making Ada a preferred technology rather than mandating it
>> might very well be advantageous even from an Ada advocate's point of view.
>> Far too often now, Ada is mandated, but in practice someone is acting as
>> though some other technology is preferred. A genuine policy of preferring
>> Ada, other things being equal, might well be preferable. For example,
>> this would mean that hardware supporting Ada should be preferred over
>> hardware that does not support Ada.
> 
> 
> I agree.  I have often thought that the best way to ensure contractors
> will want to use Ada is not to (sorta, kinda) require it, but 
> to give them financial incentive.  The most obvious way to do this,
> it seems to me, is to fix the acquisition process such that a 
> contractor bidding Ada will have (say) a 20% advantage on their
> software bid over a contractor bidding another language.  I think
> you'd have to duck to miss the stampede of contractors bidding Ada.

I agree that Ada is tainted by the reputation that the only reason for
using it would be a government requirement.  I believe, however, that
a 20% advantage would give the same bad reputation.  (Saying something
is due to a government requirement these days is not the way to gain
public support.)

But if we agree that Ada is superior for maintainability and correctness,
I would think a more fair mechanism for government would be to have those
bidders choose their language knowing that they (the bidder) will have the
burden of the "life cycle costs" and will have exposure for any damages
based on (in-)correctness issues.

Larry Kilgallen

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[Robert Dewar]

Emmet Paige says

<<I THINK ADA WILL COMPETE BETTER WITHOUT THE MANDATE>>

Robert Dewar comments

I hope that everyone realizes that my post making the point about
"preferred technology" agrees with this position. The trouble with
an absolute mandate, even in the area where it makes best sense, i.e.
war-fighting systems in the narrow sense, is that it generates antagonism,
and worse, it sends a message that Ad is not suitable in other areas.

Consider for example the isue of reengineering of large scale COBOL
applications. Now some simple applications can be reasonably approached
using high level tools, but large complex applications need to be
reprogrammed in an appropriate technology. To me Ada is clearly a preferred
technology for such reengineering compared to C++ or COBOL or Smalltalk.
But I would not for a moment suggest mandating its use, because that would
have a negative effect. On the other hand, I would not want to send a signal
that it was inappropriate because the DoD has determined that Ada is only
useful for warfighting software.

I actually think the NRC report is somewhat flawed in this area. It swallows
hook, line, and sinker, the salesman's bogus pitch that 4GL's can be used
for all major informatoin systems development, a fallacy that has been
understood in IS circles for some time. Yes, the 4GL tools are very useful
for simple applications, but are by no means panaceas. The report makes
me wonder whether anyone on the panel was really familiar first hand with
the use of 4GL's. If so, they sure have an unusual view.

So reacting to the NRC report with a narrowed mandate might, as Mr. Paige
suggests, be counter productive to the goal of making the best possible
use of Ada technology in the DoD, not to mention outside the DoD.

What is important to me in the formulation of any new replacement policy
is that it be one that is meaningful. If there is a statement that Ada is
a preferred technology, then this should have some teeth behind it that
are relected in procurement policies, both for hardware and for softwar.e
The GSA model, formulated many years ago, that the government could only
acquire computers with validated COBOL technology is an example of such
a preference in action -- this rule did not mandate the use of COBOL, but
it did make sure that no one was in a position of not being able to choose
COBOL when it *was* the best tool, because of finding that they were forced
to work on hardware that did not support COBOL.

The hardware vendors, with some notable exceptions, are not supporting
Ada 95 to the extent that they supported Ada 83. This reflects their
belief that the DoD is not really serious in preferring Ada. Even a
few instances of large hardware orders being even partially decided
by the level of Ada support would have a salutory effect!

Similarly, even a few cases in which competitive contracts for software
systems were awarded even partly on the basis of preferring Ada to other
less preferred non-validated technologies would have a significant effect.

I got a call about a year ago from a project director of a large DoD
project, who was looking for an Ada to C++ translator. He told me that
they were an Ada shop, and were extremely upset to have to convert to
C++, but that "the general in charge of the project" was insisting that
the code be written in C++, and would not allow Ada to be used. This kind
of case (I don't think it is unique), not only makes a mockery of the
idea of a mandate, but also is the antithesis of a policy of preferring
the use of Ada.

When I related this story to several people, they were angry that the
general in question was "breaking the law". But that is not my main concern
in such a case. My concern is that here is a case where the technical
people involved have made a judgment that Ada is the best tool, and that
judgment was being overridden for non-technical reasons with no substance.
This means that in such a case, DoD is ending up with inferior systems and
not taking advantage of its investment in new technology. It is that
situation that is most urgent to avoid.


Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

Note: I am speaking on behalf of both myself and Ada Core Technologies, but
I believe that the interests here go far beyond those of any one company,
and indeed far beyond the interests of the entire Ada vendor and user
community. What is important here is that all DoD systems (not just
war-fighting systems) are in a position to take maximum advantage of
the relatively modest, but highly productive, investment that DoD has
made in the development of the Ada 95 technnology.

This statement may be quoted anywhere in its entirety.

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <dewar.857914773@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> The hardware vendors, with some notable exceptions, are not supporting
> Ada 95 to the extent that they supported Ada 83. This reflects their
> belief that the DoD is not really serious in preferring Ada. Even a
> few instances of large hardware orders being even partially decided
> by the level of Ada support would have a salutory effect!

Another factor regarding hardware vendors is the presence of independent
Ada software vendors specializing in sales into the military sector.  If
a vendor offered their own Ada compiler they might find that independent
Ada software vendors where recommending to government accounts everybody
else's hardware.  This is a "lesson learned" from the Ada 83 days.

Larry Kilgallen

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[Jeff Carter]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> I got a call about a year ago from a project director of a large DoD
> project, who was looking for an Ada to C++ translator. He told me that
> they were an Ada shop, and were extremely upset to have to convert to
> C++, but that "the general in charge of the project" was insisting that
> the code be written in C++, and would not allow Ada to be used. This kind
> of case (I don't think it is unique), not only makes a mockery of the
> idea of a mandate, but also is the antithesis of a policy of preferring
> the use of Ada.

Is the correct response here, "You're paying the bills; if you think
you're better qualified to make this technical decision then us, we'll
use D--. However, we're doing the charging, and if you insist on usinge
D--, we will charge you X times more than if we use Ada"?
-- 
Jeff Carter
Innovative Concepts, Inc.

Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[Ken Garlington]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> 
> But if we agree that Ada is superior for maintainability and correctness,
> I would think a more fair mechanism for government would be to have those
> bidders choose their language knowing that they (the bidder) will have the
> burden of the "life cycle costs" and will have exposure for any damages
> based on (in-)correctness issues.

Unfortunately, no one inside or outside DoD has ever figured out how to
do this.
For example, what does "incorrect" mean, given that the DoD certifies
the system
as "correct" before it is accepted in the first place? With respect to
life cycle
costs, how can the contractor be held liable for them if they aren't
permitted to
maintain the software?

As an alternative to solving this problem, the DoD decided to push
common
technologies (DoD-STD-2167, Ada, etc.) as a way to tackle the LCC issue.
Now,
all of these forcing functions are being withdrawn. I haven't seen
anyone
pushing an alternative.

As a result, acquisition costs will be reduced, and less maintenance
will be
done. Since the cost of avoiding maintenance isn't easily quantified,
the policy
change will look good.

> 
> Larry Kilgallen

--
LMTAS - The Fighter Enterprise - "Our Brand Means Quality"
For job listings, other info: http://www.lmtas.com or
http://www.lmco.com

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[Robert I. Eachus]

In article <dewar.857857451@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

  > The idea of making Ada a preferred technology rather than
  > mandating it might very well be advantageous even from an Ada
  > advocate's point of view.  Far too often now, Ada is mandated, but
  > in practice someone is acting as though some other technology is
  > preferred. A genuine policy of preferring Ada, other things being
  > equal, might well be preferable. For example, this would mean that
  > hardware supporting Ada should be preferred over hardware that
  > does not support Ada.

   There is one Catch-22 I will be glad to get rid of.  Right now on
DoD programs, the "kiss of death" for the use of Ada or even the use
of some hardware is the existance of an UNvalidated Ada compiler for
that platform.  The mandate says you can't use the unvalidated
compiler, and a waiver is difficult if not impossible to get because
there is an Ada compiler (usually with a lapsed validation).

   There are also projects where a validation or three is essentially
a negligible cost compared to the risk avoided.  (I've worked on a
couple.)  We need a policy to deal with both.

   
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <33239A2B.352A@aonix.com> Dave Wood <dpw@aonix.com> writes:

> I would justify an incentive break based on the logic that Ada 
> presumably provides valuable benefits in life-cycle cost reduction
> and improved reliability (the latter having potential tangential
> cost reduction in human and materiel assets saved due to better
> reliability.)  If the government doesn't really believe that Ada
> saves them money and/ or assets, then why on Earth should they
> either require or prefer it?  So, if the assumption going in is
> that Ada provides such benefit, why not provide the associated 
> incentive to the contractor who is bidding Ada over one who is 
> bidding C?

This makes very good sense.  It is indeed the correct way of looking
at the situation.

> So in short, if the government truly believes that Ada saves money
> over the long term, they should financially incentivize (not mandate)
> the contractors to use it.  If the government does *not* really 
> believe it, then they should simply remove any further reference to 
> Ada in their RFPs and standards and let the market have its way.

Absolutely.  Of course, because this makes so much sense, the likely
hood of it actually being adopted is slim to zero...

/Jon

-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <dewar.857914773@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> "preferred technology" agrees with this position. The trouble with
> an absolute mandate, even in the area where it makes best sense,
> i.e.  war-fighting systems in the narrow sense, is that it generates
> antagonism, and worse, it sends a message that Ad is not suitable in
> other areas.

This is an extremely good point and IMO cannot be overemphasized.


> I actually think the NRC report is somewhat flawed in this area. It
> swallows hook, line, and sinker, the salesman's bogus pitch that
> 4GL's can be used for all major informatoin systems development, a
> fallacy that has been understood in IS circles for some time.

Agreed.  Or more likely they just played the ol' "me too! me too!"
game of wanting to look "appropriately" fadish.


[Story of idiot general, snipped]

> When I related this story to several people, they were angry that
> the general in question was "breaking the law". But that is not my
> main concern in such a case. My concern is that here is a case where
> the technical people involved have made a judgment that Ada is the
> best tool, and that judgment was being overridden for non-technical
> reasons with no substance.

Exactly!  The problem isn't about "breaking the law" - forget the law.
The problem here is about being unthinking feckless wanna bes.  This
kind of crap really honks me off - this fool is using _our_ money and
resources to make completely inappropriate decisions based on little
more than "Oh mommy mommy!  Let me play too!" mindlessness.

I say _fire_ this shithead.  If he (or she) is this mindless in making
decisions about this sort of thing, I sure as _hell_ don't want the
fool making any decsions concerning conflict scenarios and life and
death situations.


> This means that in such a case, DoD is ending up with inferior
> systems and not taking advantage of its investment in new
> technology. It is that situation that is most urgent to avoid.

Right.  Only your way of putting it is much too kind and generous.

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <5fv9os$bcq@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu> WhiteR@CRPL.Cedar-Rapids.lib.IA.US (Robert S. White) writes:

>   Some contractors have not stumbled from the "way" but do find that the 
> efforts of your company, Aonix, and that of the GNAT project have made
> Ada viable for desktop applications where the DoD mandate does not apply 
> (internal IR&D and Non-Developmental Item projects).  I have seen several
> orders for your ObjectAda going to purchasing recently.  It will be very 
> interesting to see what the metrics show for ObjectAda versus Visual C++.

Excellent!  This is exactly the sort of thing that will make all the
difference.  And this new generation of compilers and tools makes all
the difference here.


>   Yours and ACT's (Dewar/Kenner) support in solving problems and helping 
> others  on the Usenet and web is certainly a factor.  Thanks :-)

Absolutely!

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[Robert Dewar]

Robert Eachus says

<<   There is one Catch-22 I will be glad to get rid of.  Right now on
DoD programs, the "kiss of death" for the use of Ada or even the use
of some hardware is the existance of an UNvalidated Ada compiler for
that platform.  The mandate says you can't use the unvalidated
compiler, and a waiver is difficult if not impossible to get because
there is an Ada compiler (usually with a lapsed validation).>>

I find this bogus. Robert please quote some cases where this Catch-22
applies. Very explicit examples please, otherwise this seems like FUD

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[David Emery]

Part of the problem with any (relatively arbitrary) DoD policy is that
it's not worth the paper it's printed on if it's not enforced.  The
Ada Mandate was never adequately enforced.  (I know of an instance
where it was possible to identify the LtCol who explicitly decided to
disobey the policy, knowing that this violated DoD policy and also
provisions of the then-current Defense Appropriations Act.  Several
investigations/studies identified this individual as the source of the
decision, and also clearly identified that this individual knew he was
violating policies/laws etc.  But nothing was ever done about it.)

Without enforcement, an "Ada preference" policy won't be worth
anything, either.  The USAF policy was quite good about how a SPO/PM
had to build his/her business case for an Ada waiver.  This was
ignored; SPOs never bothered to ask for waivers.  

As a part-time soldier, I'm disgusted with how easy it is for the
SPOs/PMs and their staffs to knowingly disobey policies, directives,
etc.  Remember that the SPO that makes this kind of decision is rarely
around when the resulting system is delivered, and almost never around
when the system goes into serious maintenance.  He's either promoted
or retired...  (One of the most common reasons I've heard is "Why, if
Ada is so good, doesn't Microsoft use it."  When you ask if the SPO/PM
is willing to wait for Version 3.1 of SDI to get it to work right, you
get no answer...)

In my opinion, the NRC study should have considered the DoD track
record for obeying existing policies while recommending changes to
same.  If we couldn't follow the old policy, why change it?

				dave

-- 
Note: if email to me bounces, use 'emery@grebyn.com'

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[Steven D.Litvintchouk]

David Emery wrote:
> (One of the most common reasons I've heard is "Why, if
> Ada is so good, doesn't Microsoft use it."  When you ask if the SPO/PM
> is willing to wait for Version 3.1 of SDI to get it to work right, you
> get no answer...)

SDI version 3.1 would simply be the old Safeguard ABM with a more modern
GUI.  To really get SDI to really work right, you might need to wait for
SDI/NT.   :-)


-- 
Steven D. Litvintchouk		        "There seems to be no mainframe
Email:  sdl@mitre.org  		         explanation for the PC world 
Disclaimer:  As far as I am aware,       in which we're living."
the opinions expressed herein	  	      -- President Bill Clinton
are not those of my employer.

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[Pat Rogers]

Jeff Carter <carter@innocon.com> wrote in article
<33242ECA.167EB0E7@innocon.com>...
> Robert Dewar wrote:
> > 
> > I got a call about a year ago from a project director of a large DoD
> > project, who was looking for an Ada to C++ translator. He told me that
> > they were an Ada shop, and were extremely upset to have to convert to
> > C++, but that "the general in charge of the project" was insisting that
> > the code be written in C++, and would not allow Ada to be used. This
kind
> > of case (I don't think it is unique), not only makes a mockery of the
> > idea of a mandate, but also is the antithesis of a policy of preferring
> > the use of Ada.
> 
> Is the correct response here, "You're paying the bills; if you think
> you're better qualified to make this technical decision then us, we'll
> use D--. However, we're doing the charging, and if you insist on usinge
> D--, we will charge you X times more than if we use Ada"?

It should be, but the customer would just look elsewhere until they found
somebody to do it for a price they liked.

It has been said already, but I cannot fathom why anyone thinks the DoD
will manage this new approach any better than the previous policy (aka the
mandate).

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[Charles H. Sampson]

     I haven't been tracking the Ada mandate closely in recent years and 
probably my ignorance will show in the questions I ask below.

     The Ada mandate used to be called a Congressional mandate; Congress 
included it in the defense appropriations bill every year.  Have they 
stopped doing that?  If not, where does Mr. Paige get the authority to 
drop it?

     Does anyone have any idea how dropping the mandate at the DoD level 
will affect the various service policies?  Do they automatically cease 
to be effective (I can't see why) or is some explicit action required of 
each service.  Not that it matters.  The Navy has a very good implemen-
tation of the DoD policy.  As far as I know, it has never been enforced.  
(Echoing the complaint of several other contributors to this thread.)

				Charlie

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[David Taylor]

Steven D.Litvintchouk wrote:
> 
> SDI version 3.1 would simply be the old Safeguard ABM with a more modern
> GUI.  To really get SDI to really work right, you might need to wait for
> SDI/NT.   :-)
>


An even better plan might to wait for the guys that get it right. They could call it GSDI. ;-)

dave taylor

Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)

[David Emery]

I'm sure that the Next Wave for SDI will be 
	"platform independent SDI in Java:  Save the world from your
	 browser..."

				dave
-- 
Note: if email to me bounces, use 'emery@grebyn.com'