Re: Eiffel for DoD development?

[HElliott@LOSAT.REDSTONE.ARMY.MIL]

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.