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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9b8c5fefd3f42c8d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-26 01:16:54 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!msuinfo!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.uwa.edu.au!hawk!hawk!rodc
From: rodc@adied.oz.au (Rod Cheshire)
Subject: Re: DoD STD-2167A?
Message-ID: <rodc.780554008@hawk>
Organization: ADI Ltd. - Electronics Division
References: <35mqdo$gqt@theopolis.orl.mmc.com> <85BA3244E26@annwfn.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 04:33:28 GMT
Date: 1994-09-26T04:33:28+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.