From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_20 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 15 Jan 92 12:07:54 GMT From: snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!lynx!spectre.unm.e du!john@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (John Prentice) Subject: Re: federal requirements to use ada Message-ID: List-Id: 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"