Re: federal requirements to use ada

[snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!lynx!spectre.unm.e du!john@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (John Prentice)]

In article <1992Jan15.061432.18977@milton.u.washington.edu> mfeldman@milton.u.w
ashington.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:
>The US Department of Defense is under a legislative mandate to use Ada for new
>software, as from 6/1/91, where cost-effective. My understanding is that
>the cost-effectiveness test is being applied in good faith, non-cynically,
>via military policy documents (of which I have a couple which I'll
>send by e-mail to anyone who writes for them).
>
>NASA and FAA are heavy users of Ada, with no legal mandate to be such.
>
>Other governments, netters? 
>

Speaking for the numerically intensive government world however, I would
have to say that Ada is a non-starter.  I know of no major numerical codes
being written in Ada and there is a virtual dirth of compilers for any 
of the supercomputers (are there ANY?).  Some lip service is paid to these
"mandates", but the only people I know doing so are officials who are
at best distantly connected to the real world of computing.  None of this
is a statement about the pros or cons of Ada, it is just an observation
of the current state of numerical computing.  I don't see this changing
in the future.

John
-- 
John Prentice

"I would rather be climbing"