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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4d3d6e0d9380f47f,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-28 11:31:30 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: nntp.gmd.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.cs.utah.edu!dog.ee.lbl.gov!newshub.nosc.mil!avalon.chinalake.navy.mil!vijay.chinalake.navy.mil!user From: vijay@nawc690.chinalake.navy.mil (Jim Vijay) Subject: DoD Ada 95 Policy Message-ID: Sender: usenet@avalon.chinalake.navy.mil (NAWS news admin) Organization: NAWC Date: Tue, 28 Mar 1995 13:17:35 GMT Date: 1995-03-28T13:17:35+00:00 List-Id: Sorry if this is old hat for cla readers. But it is an important aspect of Ada 95 usage in DoD. So here goes. What is the DoD policy wrt Ada 95 and projects that are already under contract to use Mil-Std-1815A (Ada 83)? Would it be a violation of the contract if the contractor decided to use Ada 95? Does it hinge on whether the compiler is fully validated? If so, this might preclude near term use of Ada 95. Which would be a shame since our project - mission planning software - has to interface with a C core in a Unix environment, provide an X-windows compatible graphical user interface, and interface with a COTS relational database. The OO and mixed language features of Ada 95 would certainly be a boost to productivity here. I have been informed that the Hon. Emmett Paige Jr, Asst. Sec. of Defense (C3I), has issued a memo dated 9 March 1994 that addresses this issue. Is the text of this memo available on the net? I realize that contract modification is one hope. But the Govt moves in mysterious (and mostly slow) ways. So it would be nice to know of an easy out. Thanks -- Jim Vijay