Re: One DoD programmer's hostility towards Ada and the Mandate

[agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!news.s ei.cmu.edu!ajpo.sei.cmu.edu!wellerd@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (David Weller)]

In article <CCxu75.4AA@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
 writes:
>     Attached is a comment from someone who is representative of the type
>of uniformed and civilian personnel who actually get the programming work
>done inside the DoD.  The comments are comments you will not hear for the
>most part publicly in the Mandated world, but probably reflect the sentiments
>of large numbers of actual DoD programmers. The stick-our-heads-in-the-sand
>policy by the DoD with regards to not wanting to know how people in the
>Mandated world feel about Ada policies and if they are actually obeying
>the policies - is unprofesisonal and hypocritical, and killing the language.
>
>
Couldn't agree more.  The mandate, as it stands, needs to be dropped
or changed.  People ignore it for emotional and political reasons.
Of course, I seem to recall a mandate requiring the US to convert
to the metric system, which was also quietly swept under the rug (
circa 1970).

I have written my letter to Vice President Gore.  It apparently 
fell into the congressional /dev/null, since I've yet to get a
direct reply in over four months (aside from the standard, "Thank
you for your letter" reply.  And I didn't even use the word
"pinheaded" in my letter :-).  

It is quite easy for us (in the Internet community) to be "technically
offended" by such banal statements as:
>> What is killing ADA is that other programming language are better then it
>>is. Are you advocating that we use something that is not the best available?

Clearly, the statement rests on the emotional context of the situation.
"Better" and "best" are subjective points in the author's defense, yet,
to him, they are as valid any technical point discussed.

The fact that the author can be proven technically wrong about the 
above statement is totally irrelevant.  You cannot prove him wrong, 
simply because he is demonstrably right:  He can write software faster 
in his "native" language (C/C++).

Time and time again, we've complained about poor competition from
vendors, lackluster Congressional support, and a general disdain
from the two largest programming communities (COBOL and C/C++).

Complaining on this newsgroup doesn't help.  We are too damn busy
converting the choir.  Greg's recent efforts, however, should stand
as an example of how we can make our little "Ada world" a better place.

Who represents the interests of this professional community on
Capitol Hill?  The ASA?  Are "they" funded by SIGAda to promulgate
and strengthen the mandate?  What kind of feedback are we getting,
as a professional internet community, on efforts to support our
language?  What representatives, besides Senator Byrd (no comments
about pork-barreling, please), support and fight for our
language (which is losing market share simply because it is
Congressionally unsupported -- like the metric system).

Vice President Gore is scheduled to speak at this year's Tri-Ada,
but to how many people?  over 2,500, like in the early years? Or
under 1,500, like will probably be the case for this year?  Who
is telling him the "truth"?  That, in spite of executive-level mandates
from every branch of the military, the requirement to use Ada is ignored
in all but the biggest-visibility projects (which verifies the fact
that the cracks in our legal system make the Grand Canyon look like
a hairline fracture :-).

dgw (I've griped enuff for one post).

-- 
type My_Disclaimer is new Standard.Disclaimer with record
	AJPO, SEI : Cognizance := Disavow_All_Knowledge;
end record;--)