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

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

[Robert Dewar]

There was not, and has never been, a "mandate" for the US to convert to
metric measures. The issue has often been discussed, but as a result of
popular opposition (and blatant ignorance on the part of our politicians,
the transcripts of the hearings make amusing reading), no legislation
was ever passed that I am aware of.

Anyone know enough to contradict this?

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

[pacbell.com!att-out!cbnewsj!cbnewsi!cbnewsh!cbnewse!cbnewsd!cbnewsc!cbfsb]

>From article <26guhl$jni@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu>, by dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert De
war):
> There was not, and has never been, a "mandate" for the US to convert to
> metric measures. The issue has often been discussed, but as a result of
> popular opposition (and blatant ignorance on the part of our politicians,
> the transcripts of the hearings make amusing reading), no legislation
> was ever passed that I am aware of.
> 
> Anyone know enough to contradict this?
> 
>

I don't *know* for sure, but I seem to remember requirements in Federal 
Highway funding bills to include metric distances in all new highway 
mileage markers.  I also believe it was a DOT requirement that the
speedometers of new vehicles show both English & metric speeds.  Not
sure if the later was required by law, or just a DOT regulation.

Let me tie this back into Ada by submitting that the US Federal Govt. is
so large and powerful that it can compel individuals or companies to do
things (or refrain from doing them) in a variety of ways.  Perhaps some
investigation into the meaning of an appropriate "mandate" is in order.
I believe Feldman et. al. have already made this suggestion.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dave Willett          AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies

The biggest mistake you can make is to believe that you work for someone else.
			
			-- Anonymous

 

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

[cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.]

In article <26guhl$jni@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wr
ites:
>There was not, and has never been, a "mandate" for the US to convert to
>metric measures. The issue has often been discussed, but as a result of
>popular opposition (and blatant ignorance on the part of our politicians,
>the transcripts of the hearings make amusing reading), no legislation
>was ever passed that I am aware of.
>
>Anyone know enough to contradict this?
>

Well, not that this has much to do with Ada ;>

The Metric System is the _only_ system that has received specific
legislative _sanction_ by Congress in the Law of 1866, which states
in part:

     "It shall be lawful throughout the United States of America
      to employ the weights and measures of the metric system; and
      no contract or dealing...shall be deemed invalid or liable to
      objection because the weights or measures expressed or referred
      to therein are weights and measures of the metric system."

The Trade Act of 1988 called for the federal government to adopt metric
specifications by Dec 31, 1992, and mandated the Commerce Dept to
oversee the program. "Sorry, folks, back in Arkansas, we all buy
our groceries in good old patriotic pounds. Only a citified
easterner would buy a 2.26 kg sack of potatos."

I personally believe it is an Illuminati conspiracy to inflict the
old furlongs/fortnights/stone system on impressionable youngsters,
thereby instilling in them a life-long frustration and resulting
fear of math and science ("Jason, will you be good enough to please
put down your Beavis and Butthead comic and tell the class how many
tablespoons there are in a gallon? You don't know? Well, Jason, I
just don't see how you're going to make your way in the world if
you are unable to master symbol basics like that.")

---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Mark Shanks                              \ | /    |"Should they be 
| Principal Engineer                     __ ~l~ __  |punished for trying
| 777 Displays                            -- u --   |to satisfy the hunger
| shanks@saifr00.ateng.az.honeywell.com    /-v-\    |of an empty soul?"
| "We have such sights to show you..."       |      |"Yes. Take them away."
|                                                   |  "After The Fox"
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[agate!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!csn!news.sinet.slb.com!news.lond]

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.

Why "probably"? How do you know?

> Greg Aharonian                                      srctran@world.std.com
> Source Translation & Optimization                            617-489-3727
> P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
>
>> It was not an organized plot to undermine the ADA mandate, the language and
>>performance does that already, but rather is deals with reality.  The ADA 
>>mandate is basicly a flop. In my community, real time graphics, the only 
>>ones who are using it are the ones who have too.  And if you check closely, 
>>alot of them are doing alot of the other stuff in C, C++, or even FORTRAN. 
>>Your comment about ADA not being the language of choice is very true. I 
>>have talked to no one, outside of academic software engineers, who like it. 

etc. etc. etc....

Posting stuff like this is meaningless. So you know someone who doesn't like
using Ada, and who doesn't know anyone who does. I like using Ada (and
I'm not an academic software engineer) and I know other people who do.

So what? Neither of our personal beliefs proves anything.

>> I find it very interesting that the ADA advocates have to find programs
>>that succeed when they use ADA. Are they, so insecure about the choice of
>>programming languages that they have to brag about the success? 

It's a lose-lose situation. People say "no-one programs in Ada". So people
like Mike Feldman produce a list to show that they do. Then you get the
"Ada people must be insecure because they need to produce a list of Ada
projects".

Mathew Lodge
Software Engineer
Schlumberger Technologies ATE
Ferndown, UK.

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]

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;--)