Re: Eiffel for DoD development?

[dennison@romulus23.DAB.GE.COM (Ted Dennison)]

In article <g5WSkakPrwVQ070yn@cpcug.org>, wayned@cpcug.org (Wayne Dernoncourt) writes:
|> In article <34qal9$6s2@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
|> dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) wrote:
|> 
|>  > I don't understand how a precedent could be set.  The DoD
|>  > requires usage of Ada except in cases where significant cost
|>  > savings could be demonstrated across the life cycle.  Aside from
|>  > some rather pedantic features, Ada 9X offers _at least_ as much
|>  > functionality as Eiffel.  (Flame bait! :-)
|>  > _Especially_ for real-time control and monitoring systems.  
|> 
|> I thought Ada was mandated only for embedded combat software, things like
|> test sets, etc. were excluded from having to be written in Ada.  Has DoD
|> changed their tune and will now force new business system software, etc. to
|> be written in Ada.  You should understand that were I work, we have a
|> group that writes business systems and still does it all in COBOL. 
|> Thankfully, I'm not a member of that group.<grin>

You thought wrong. The Ada mandate NEVER had any such limitation on it. (In
fact, the application you mention is one of the most difficult to use Ada on
due to full Ada's run-time environment.) Rumors like that have been going
around for years, but they are just that: RUMORS. One must wonder about the 
motives of those who spread them...

Anyway, mandating Ada for business systems under DoD contract (are there such
things?) would NOT be a change of tune. 

ENFORCING the mandate might be.

T.E.D.