From: rodc@adied.oz.au (Rod Cheshire)
Subject: Re: DoD STD-2167A?
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 04:33:28 GMT
Date: 1994-09-26T04:33:28+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <rodc.780554008@hawk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 85BA3244E26@annwfn.com
merlin@annwfn.com (Fred McCall) writes:
>In <35mqdo$gqt@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> dennison@romulus23.DAB.GE.COM Ted Dennison writes:
>>Of course, being an Adaphile, I believe 2167A's emphasis on quality IMPLIES
>>a use of Ada.
>Not to mention its insistence on reams of meaningless verbosity in the
>way of documentation. I will merely note that there is a strong move to
>do away with requirement of 2167A compliance and have DoD go to 'best
>commercial practice' in order to try to get costs down out of the
>stratosphere; I will leave the corollery back to Ada to someone else
>(but it certainly seems to apply).
stuff deleted.....
Not to mention those who blindly follow 2167A and fail to relize that
it can be tailored to meet _THEIR__ needs.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1994-09-26 4:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1994-09-20 8:32 DoD STD-2167A? Dani Schnider
1994-09-20 14:08 ` Ted Dennison
1994-09-24 18:38 ` Fred McCall
1994-09-26 4:33 ` Rod Cheshire [this message]
1994-09-28 2:20 ` Lee_Robert_Willis
1994-09-28 4:25 ` Wanted: Ada for OS/2 Scot A.C. Gould
1994-09-22 21:55 ` DoD STD-2167A? TOM
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox