comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: weisek@source.asset.com (Kevin Weise)
Subject: Re: Eiffel for DoD development?
Date: 30 Sep 1994 09:38:01 -0400
Date: 1994-09-30T09:38:01-04:00	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <36h4bp$k96@source.asset.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 85BA3295BE6@annwfn.com

In article <85BA3295BE6@annwfn.com>, Fred McCall <merlin@annwfn.com> wrote:
>In <g5WSkakPrwVQ070yn@cpcug.org> wayned@cpcug.org Wayne Dernoncourt writes:
>
>>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
>
>First of all, it's really Congress that's responsible for the Ada
>Mandate, not DoD.  Secondly, it applies to *all* software.  The only
>reason business systems can often get a waiver (and yes, they need to
>get one, as the Mandate exists) is because of all the already existing
>COBOL out there (demonstrable price savings over the lifecycle).  
>
>And yes, the 'Ada Police' *will* come and get in your face if you get
>caught trying to use something else, even if what you're doing isn't
>embedded software and (sometimes) even if it makes more sense to use a
>different language because of already existing things that you have to
>work with (and no, this is not purely theoretical knowledge).

Would that it were true!  I could give you a handful of programs that
are COMPLETELY ignoring the mandate and getting away with it.  Come to
think of it, I have NEVER seen the "Ada Police" in action, anywhere, at
any time.  I do know that RFP's come out with requirements for using
Ada, but with the emphasis on COTS, its an easy escape hatch.  Not that
I'm complaining about the appropriate use of COTS.  Its just that I see
too much non-Ada IR&D and other "internal" software development that
suddenly becomes COTS for the purposes of a proposal.  It seems to me
that any organization that has the slightest amount of chutzpah can
avoid using Ada at all, regardless of whether it is a technically or
economically sound decision.

But, of course, this thread has been beat to death by many a contributor
on this newsgroup.  I, for one, would like to see a few instances of
defense contractors that have been reprimanded or suffered ANY
consequences at all for breaking the Congressionally-imposed LAW.  

You don't have to convince me that Ada is a good choice, I've been using it
since the early '80's (started with teaching it at Martin Marietta in
Denver).  But I also have been "eased" into a C/C++ environment lately.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin J. Weise			weisek@source.asset.com
COLSA Corporation		Voice - (205) 922-1512 ext. 2115
6726 Odyssey Drive		FAX   - (205) 971-0002
Huntsville, AL  35806
{Standard Disclaimers about my opinions & my employer's opinions}
{... which are in conflict often enough}
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Admire those who seek the truth;
  avoid those who find it."		Marcel Proust



  reply	other threads:[~1994-09-30 13:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <DERWAY.94Aug31155314@alumni.ndc.com>
     [not found] ` <ROCK.94Sep3181528@twratl.atlanta.twr.com>
     [not found]   ` <1994Sep9.072456.1302@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com>
1994-09-09 18:48     ` Eiffel for DoD development? (Was Re: Why Commit to Eiffel?) David Weller
1994-09-20 11:10       ` Eiffel for DoD development? Wayne Dernoncourt
1994-09-20 14:26         ` Ted Dennison
1994-09-20 17:18         ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-24 18:44         ` Fred McCall
1994-09-30 13:38           ` Kevin Weise [this message]
1994-10-03 23:01             ` Richard Riehle
1994-10-04  5:18               ` Gregory Aharonian
1994-10-04 14:49                 ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-04 19:24                 ` Dave Ceely
     [not found]               ` <CxAypC.CpH@actrix.gen.nz>
     [not found]                 ` <EACHUS.94Oct7145734@spectre.mitre.org>
     [not found]                   ` <jws-1102940843050001@seeker.tiac.net>
1994-10-11 10:05                     ` Robert I. Eachus
     [not found]                 ` <373uv0$fgm@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
     [not found]                   ` <CxCCv0.999@actrix.gen.nz>
1994-10-11 13:17                     ` Robb Nebbe
     [not found]                 ` <376tq0$84b@dayuc.dayton.saic.com>
     [not found]                   ` <jws-1102941650060001@seeker.tiac.net>
     [not found]                     ` <377864$tv@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
1994-10-12 11:20                       ` Joseph Skinner
1994-10-14 20:02                         ` Richard Riehle
     [not found]                       ` <jws-1202940906260001@seeker.tiac.net>
     [not found]                         ` <37942s$8b1@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
1994-10-12 13:12                           ` David Emery
     [not found]                       ` <CxEuJv.B2L@ois.com>
     [not found]                         ` <379632$9to@starbase.neosoft.com>
1994-10-13 11:42                           ` Robert M. Wilkinson
1994-10-13 14:28                             ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-22 15:19 gjennings
     [not found] <376a55$5af@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
1994-10-12 11:38 ` Fred McCall
     [not found] <9410101353.AA03104@neptune.sware.com>
1994-10-12 17:48 ` David Emery
     [not found] <CD5F9E2E029D1B76@-SMF->
1994-10-14 12:35 ` HElliott
1994-10-14 17:33   ` Thomas Hood 913-4501
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1994-10-22 21:12 Test Account
replies disabled

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox