* Re: Eiffel for DoD development? (Was Re: Why Commit to Eiffel?)
[not found] ` <1994Sep9.072456.1302@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com>
@ 1994-09-09 18:48 ` David Weller
1994-09-20 11:10 ` Eiffel for DoD development? Wayne Dernoncourt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: David Weller @ 1994-09-09 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <1994Sep9.072456.1302@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com>,
<krajnakm@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com> wrote:
>> [Robert "Rock" Howard of Tower Technology writes, when asked about
the feasability of using Eiffel for a control and monitoring system]
>> Do it. The technology is inexpensive. The uptake time is short.
>>
>I'd like to *do it* but I primarily develop software for the DoD. Which
>brings to mind the question are there any precedents for using Eiffel for
>DoD development, and if so how do I contact those brave souls?
>
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.
Have you bothered looking at Ada 9X? What were your conclusions?
--
Proud (and vocal) member of Team Ada! (and Team OS/2) ||This is not your
Ada 9X -- It doesn't suck || father's Ada
For all sorts of interesting Ada 9X tidbits, run the command:||________________
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Eiffel for DoD development?
1994-09-09 18:48 ` Eiffel for DoD development? (Was Re: Why Commit to Eiffel?) David Weller
@ 1994-09-20 11:10 ` Wayne Dernoncourt
1994-09-20 14:26 ` Ted Dennison
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Wayne Dernoncourt @ 1994-09-20 11:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
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>
--
Take care | This clown speaks for himself, his job doesn't
Wayne D. | pay for this, etc. (directly anyway)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Eiffel for DoD development?
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
2 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Ted Dennison @ 1994-09-20 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Eiffel for DoD development?
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
2 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-20 17:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
Wayne, your idea that the mandate is restricted to embedded combat systems
is indeed hopelessly out of date, and YES, business systems are also covered
by the mandate (and the usual possible exceptions to the mandate).
And also, it isn't a matter of DoD changing its policy, the mandate is a
matter of law.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Eiffel for DoD development?
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
2 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Fred McCall @ 1994-09-24 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
>changed their tune and will now force new business system software, etc. to
>be written in Ada.
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).
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
merlin@annwfn.com -- I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Eiffel for DoD development?
1994-09-24 18:44 ` Fred McCall
@ 1994-09-30 13:38 ` Kevin Weise
1994-10-03 23:01 ` Richard Riehle
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Weise @ 1994-09-30 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Eiffel for DoD development?
1994-09-30 13:38 ` Kevin Weise
@ 1994-10-03 23:01 ` Richard Riehle
1994-10-04 5:18 ` Gregory Aharonian
[not found] ` <CxAypC.CpH@actrix.gen.nz>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Richard Riehle @ 1994-10-03 23:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <36h4bp$k96@source.asset.com>
weisek@source.asset.com (Kevin Weise) writes:
>>
>>And yes, the 'Ada Police' *will* come and get in your face if you get
>>caught trying to use something else,
>
>Would that it were true! I could give you a handful of programs that
>are COMPLETELY ignoring the mandate and getting away with it.
From: Richard Riehle
We do not need the "Ada Police." We need sustained quality leadership.
I am pleased to report that we have recently discovered more and more DoD
sites who are paying attention to Secretary Paige's instructions. I just
returned from an Ada training assignment with one of the important DoD
computer programming installations and found a management that was both
enthusiastic and committed to implementing DoD policy. Of real importance
was the fact that the Director of this installation was leading the way. The
middle managers knew what the Director required, and they were taking steps
to make it happen. This site has PC's, Mainframes, and UNIX systems. They
have a plan in place for moving ahead. The Director even announced his
plans to follow Secretary Paige's advice to begin designing long-term
projects using the new Ada 94 standard.
If we can continue to develop this kind of leadership in key DoD organizations,
there will be no need for recriminations. There will be no need to explore
culpability. The Director of this installation actually pays attention to
the direction from his top management. He is naive enough to believe that
orders are orders. And he makes cure his subordinates understand his firm
committment to following those orders.
Give us a few more managers like this, and all the talk about "Ada Police"
becomes irrelevant.
I, too, like Eiffel. It is a beautifully designed language. But DoD policy
is Ada. Let's stick to it.
Richard Riehle
AdaWorks Software Engineering
Suite 27
2555 Park Boulevard
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(415) 328-1815 FAX 328-1112
email: adaworks@netcom.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Eiffel for DoD development?
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>
1 sibling, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Gregory Aharonian @ 1994-10-04 5:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
>From: Richard Riehle
>
>We do not need the "Ada Police." We need sustained quality leadership.
>
>I am pleased to report that we have recently discovered more and more DoD
>sites who are paying attention to Secretary Paige's instructions.
As a percentage of what? Certainly you are not referring to any DOD
site affliated with ARPA, the Air Force's KBSA effort at Rome AFB, etc.
If "More and more" means moving from 5% to 10%, stick to a good wine for
your pleasure.
Greg Aharonian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Eiffel for DoD development?
1994-10-04 5:18 ` Gregory Aharonian
@ 1994-10-04 14:49 ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-04 19:24 ` Dave Ceely
1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-04 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
GA logic is known to have some unusual rules, does GA arithmetic also
have unusual rules and not consider 10% to be greater than 5% :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Eiffel for DoD development?
1994-10-04 5:18 ` Gregory Aharonian
1994-10-04 14:49 ` Robert Dewar
@ 1994-10-04 19:24 ` Dave Ceely
1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Dave Ceely @ 1994-10-04 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <SRCTRAN.94Oct4001852@world.std.com>,
Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com> wrote:
>
snip
>>
> As a percentage of what? Certainly you are not referring to any DOD
>site affliated with ARPA, the Air Force's KBSA effort at Rome AFB, etc.
>If "More and more" means moving from 5% to 10%, stick to a good wine for
>your pleasure.
>
>Greg Aharonian
>
And so it goes.........Greg. You jump on Richard and then cite ARPA and
Rome Labs as though they were associated with the majority of DoD
programs. Sorry to disappoint you, but a 5% swing in the service
programs would be way more than what is associated with the those
agencies. Get your facts right. It'll be less work for the rest
of us.
Dave Ceely - My opinions represent my own thought processes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CxAypC.CpH@actrix.gen.nz>]
* Re: Eiffel for DoD development?
@ 1994-09-22 15:19 gjennings
0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: gjennings @ 1994-09-22 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
dennison@romulus23.DAB.GE.COM (Ted Dennison) wrote:
>> From: dennison@romulus23.DAB.GE.COM (Ted Dennison)
>> Date: 21-SEP-1994 16:31:59
>> Description: Re: Eiffel for DoD development?
>> Message sent: 20 Sep 1994 14:26:37 GMT.
>> 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:
[...snip...]
>> |> 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.
[...snip...]
>> 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.)
[...snip...]
What "embedded" means is, in practice, open to debate. However, I've written
digital flight control software in Ada and JOVIAL targeting a 1750A bare
machine; this should satisfy the most stringent definition of "embedded".
We never experienced significant problems using Ada due to its run-time. In
fact, I was very, very pleased with Ada in this environment. We may not have
satisfied your definition of "full Ada" because we didn't use tasking or
dynamic allocation, but what does that give up when compared to other
languages used in the same application?
Wasn't there a "safe subset" thread recently that covered this topic?
>> Anyway, mandating Ada for business systems under DoD contract (are there
>> such things?) would NOT be a change of tune.
[...snip...]
I'm not sure what the question is...
IF question is "are there business systems under DoD contract"
This can't be the question, so I won't open myself for flaming
ELSIF question is "is Ada used in DoD business systems"
Yes, indeedy-doody it is or I've been dreaming for the past three
years.
We currently have four large Info Systems in house. Smallest is roughly
90k Ada physical lines (physical - blank - comment), the larget 400k
and growing.
ELSE "neither is really the question"
Please elaborate
ENDIF "question is..."
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <376a55$5af@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>]
* Re: Eiffel for DoD development?
[not found] <376a55$5af@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
@ 1994-10-12 11:38 ` Fred McCall
0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Fred McCall @ 1994-10-12 11:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
In <376a55$5af@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM David Weller writes:
>I agree completely with this. There should be sufficient flexibility
>in prototype work for people to explore alternative languages,
>architectures, etc. Should that move out into the realm of
>long-lived, maintained software for the DoD? No. Emphatically no.
>You're welcome to disagree with me on this. Counterarguments,
>however, won't change my opinion.
In other words, don't cloud the issue with facts. Your mind is made
up. Do you still wonder why I object to the Ada Mandate and the type of
thinking (like this) that it seems to engender?
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
merlin@annwfn.com -- I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <9410101353.AA03104@neptune.sware.com>]
* Re: Eiffel for DoD development?
[not found] <9410101353.AA03104@neptune.sware.com>
@ 1994-10-12 17:48 ` David Emery
0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: David Emery @ 1994-10-12 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
Besides FRESCO, a group has been formed within the IEEE to standardize
Ada9X bindings to IEEE 1295 (IEEE Motif). So the X Windows issue is
being solved.
But Dennis raises a more general question about Ada and bindings. He
asserts that:
>[the costs of developing/maintaing an Ada binding] would
>overwhelm the savings provided by Ada's inherent software architecture
>advantages when compared to ANSI C.
The issue here is one of scale. An Ada binding can (if done right)
provide substantial advantages to other parts of the system that use
the binding. So, the issue is whether the fixed cost of maintaing the
binding is overtaken by the proportionate savings resulting from using
Ada and the associated Ada binding.
We did a prototype client/server system, using a locally-developed Ada
binding to XVT. The XVT/Ada binding was about 2k Ada statements, and
the application code was about 20k Ada statements. In our estimation,
we 'broke even' with the Ada binding. In particular, we isolated a
lot of C dependencies/warts and also XVT dependencies/warts within the
Ada binding, and hid them from the applications program, simplifying
the application. Our prototype was about 15% of the total application
code. Thus, we'd project a net win for the Ada binding, since there
would be savings/advantages in the other 85% of the code we didn't
write.
dave
--
--The preceeding opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
--The MITRE Corporation or its sponsors.
-- "A good plan violently executed -NOW- is better than a perfect plan
-- next week" George Patton
-- "Any damn fool can write a plan. It's the execution that gets you
-- all screwed up" James Hollingsworth
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <CD5F9E2E029D1B76@-SMF->]
* Re: Eiffel for DoD development?
[not found] <CD5F9E2E029D1B76@-SMF->
@ 1994-10-14 12:35 ` HElliott
1994-10-14 17:33 ` Thomas Hood 913-4501
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: HElliott @ 1994-10-14 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
Robert Wilkinson wrote:
>I don't think the "mandate" is an issue of language choice. The language
>itself is actually a *very* minor concern when all the "ramifications" and
>politics are concerned.
>>As languages go, Ada is _the_ most reliable, portable, and general
>>purpose language one can use. That's no accident, either :-)
>This statement is about as accurate as saying that a Corvette is *the*
>most reliable and useful vehicle one can ever buy. Maybe so for some
>people, but I hardly think a farmer would agree.
>Ada has its advantages, just like every other language, and it has its
>disadvantages, just like every other language.
This is no surprise considering the source.
As I stated before, the Ada mandate is LAW. I posted the actual text of the
law previously under this same subject, I can repost if anyone wants to see
it. Its law, folks, just like the laws against fraud, perjury, etc etc.
This country is going to begin to unravel if we don't either enforce laws,
or get them off the books. For DoD software, Ada is the law. The law says
nothing about suitability for the purpose, although it does allow waivers.
Lets send somebody to jail for violating it, or fine their employer and barr
them from further DoD contracts, or else lets get the law changed and let
evolution take over.
Thanks,
Doc Elliott
LOSAT Computer Engineer
INTERNET: helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil
The opinions expressed herein are mine, and do not
constitute an official government position, unless
specifically stated as such.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Eiffel for DoD development?
1994-10-14 12:35 ` HElliott
@ 1994-10-14 17:33 ` Thomas Hood 913-4501
0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Hood 913-4501 @ 1994-10-14 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <CC5F9E2E019D1B76@-SMF->, HElliott@LOSAT.REDSTONE.ARMY.MIL writes:
|> Robert Wilkinson wrote:
<blah, blah, blah>
.
.
.
|> As I stated before, the Ada mandate is LAW. I posted the actual text of the
|> law previously under this same subject, I can repost if anyone wants to see
|> it. Its law, folks, just like the laws against fraud, perjury, etc etc.
|> This country is going to begin to unravel if we don't either enforce laws,
|> or get them off the books. For DoD software, Ada is the law. The law says
|> nothing about suitability for the purpose, although it does allow waivers.
|> Lets send somebody to jail for violating it, or fine their employer and barr
|> them from further DoD contracts, or else lets get the law changed and let
|> evolution take over.
The problem I see is when the customer decides to abandon Ada on the
advice of the contractor. At that point the contractor won't complain
since the customer made the decision. I see a disconnect between the
enforcers of the mandate and the decision makers on the individual
projects. More directly, it's not the contractors abandoning the
mandate, it's the customer. How do you prosecute them?
|>
|>
|> Thanks,
|> Doc Elliott
|> LOSAT Computer Engineer
|> INTERNET: helliott@losat.redstone.army.mil
|> The opinions expressed herein are mine, and do not
|> constitute an official government position, unless
|> specifically stated as such.
--
Thomas Hood
hoodt@lfs.loral.com
-- Ada grunt since 1985
-- Member Team Ada since 1994
-- Member Team Human since 1965
--
-- My opinions are not those of my employers, and if they were I'd probably
-- reject them out of hand and form new ones.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: Eiffel for DoD development?
@ 1994-10-22 21:12 Test Account
0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Test Account @ 1994-10-22 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
Richard Riehle (riehler@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu) wrote:
: Prove to me that Ada cannot do the job, and I will use an alternative.
This sounds like an argument used to avoid high-level languages
altogether, in lieu of assembler.
Regards,
David C. Matthews
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1994-10-22 21:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[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
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
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox