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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9f9e8bd17e4d4c4d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,7d7ee3c3e9e9e103 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,7d7ee3c3e9e9e103 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-30 22:52:05 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!source.asset.com!source.asset.com!not-for-mail From: weisek@source.asset.com (Kevin Weise) Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Eiffel for DoD development? Date: 30 Sep 1994 09:38:01 -0400 Organization: Asset Source for Software Engineering Technology Message-ID: <36h4bp$k96@source.asset.com> References: <85BA3295BE6@annwfn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 530tr0 Xref: bga.com comp.lang.eiffel:2125 comp.object:6948 comp.lang.ada:6353 Date: 1994-09-30T09:38:01-04:00 List-Id: In article <85BA3295BE6@annwfn.com>, Fred McCall wrote: >In 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