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: 103376,44e43dc2ffe2ab01
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Perhaps there _is_ a conspiracy against Ada
Date: 1997/04/17
Message-ID: <dewar.861279385@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 235474310
References: <1997apr13.153233.1@eisner>
 <5iurff$2a8@newssvr01-int.news.prodigy.com> <3353E636.69A2@lmtas.lmco.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Ken said

<<In fact, the NRC study recognizes that Ada may not always be the best
solution
for this class of software, and it appears that DoD will be implementing
much of this study's recommendations.

Is your client requesting waivers for such software, even under the
current
policy? If not, why not?>>


Note that in the world where one is pushed strongly towards using Ada, there
tends to be an unhealthy dichotomy between two extremes:

1. OK, we will do it 100% in Ada because we have to

2. We will dump Ada completely, and do it in xxx (either getting a waiver
   or ignoring the rules).

>From a technical point of view, it is often the case that the best solution
is a mixed one in which parts that are suitable are done in Ada, and parts
that are better done in some other environment (e.g. use of some already
establishd libraries) is done in some other language.