Re: Eiffel for DoD development?

[hoodt@postoffice.manassas.ibm.com (Thomas Hood 913-4501)]

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.