DoD dumps mainframe for PC network using C software

DoD dumps mainframe for PC network using C software

[Gregory Aharonian]

    [From the Sept 13 issue of Government Computer News, page 77, excerpts]
    [Another account of Pentagon units violating federal Mandate law]

   Client-server computing has matured enough for Defense Department officials
to begin using it in two systems that manage standardized documents at sites
across the United States and in 34 other nations.

   Thomas Ballantine, automation program manager in the Office of Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Production and Logistics, said the two systems are
part of a four system configuration for disseminating draft specifications
for review, receiving the comments and coordinating about 50,000 specification
documents.  The two systems support DoD standards under CALS, including SGML,
CGM and IGES.  One systems was built from scratch, the other migrated from a
mainframe system put into service in the 1970s.

   The Acquisition Streamlining and Standardization Electronic Transfer
System (ASSETS) is a multi-user, dial-up, on-line, integrated system for
authoring and editing.  The other client-server system, the Acquisition
Streamlining and Standardization Information SysTem (ASSIST) was ported from
a mainframe.

   ASSETS runs on a 66-MHz 486 with 31 "slave" boards, using Novell software,
Santa Cruz Open Desktop, and Alloy's LinkPC communications software.  ASSIST
runs on two 33-MHz 486 servers running SCO Unix, using Oracle's SQL packages,
Oracle Pro/C programming language, and PL/SQL.

   [..... other details about the systems and their successful development]

==============================================================================

   Here we see why Ada is in so much trouble, when an office deep in the
Pentagon can develop two large, heavily used systems using C-based COTS
software and C-based application development.  This system could have been
done in Ada, had they cared and respected the Ada Mandate.  Instead, it was
done in C, and publicized in Government Computer News, where non-Mandated
people will read it and have their suspicions (right or wrong) reaffirmed,
that the DoD just does not care about Ada except for large, embedded projects.
   Where the Mandate says "all DoD software", Congress meant ALL.
-- 
**************************************************************************
 Greg Aharonian                                      srctran@world.std.com
 Source Translation & Optimization                            617-489-3727
 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

Re: DoD dumps mainframe for PC network using C software

[Gregory Aharonian]

>  >    Here we see why Ada is in so much trouble, when an office deep in the
>  > Pentagon can develop two large, heavily used systems using C-based COTS
>  > software and C-based application development.  This system could have been
>  > done in Ada, had they cared and respected the Ada Mandate...

>  Greg, read the policies carefully before making statements like
>this.  While I would have preferred that Ada had been used, the
>policies are designed to enourage use of, existing software, COTS
>software and SQL.  All of the various Ada policies have exceptions
>designed to avoid conflicts with these other policies.  This looks to
>me like an example of complying with government mandates, not of
>ignoring them.

   To me, this looks like a case of conflicting mandates.  What happens
when all DoD software needs can be met cost-effectively by COTS software,
none of which is done in Ada?  Then one mandate, COTS, effectively renders
useless another mandate, Ada.
   Think of the following domains: communications, networking, databases,
GUI, parallel processing, expert systems, natural language analysis,
multimedia, CALS, VHDL, SGML, EDI, etc.  Such software applications make
up a large fraction of DoD programming that cannot be done more cost
effectively in Ada - the COTS stuff is just too good too well priced.
When such a large percentage of DoD needs can be met with non-Ada costs
products, the all encompassing nature of the Ada Mandate (which does say
ALL DOD PROGRAMMING) becomes irrevelant.
   So sure, I want DoD officials to be cost effective.  It's just that the
assumptions made about Ada's cost effectiveness vis-a-vis other languages
made many years ago are no longer true, and thus the rationale for the
all encompassing Ada mandate.
   The problems is not COTS, nor the Ada language, but unrealistic
assumptions underlying the Mandate.  Either redefine it or drop it, but
as it is, it is only followed when it is convenient.

Greg



-- 
**************************************************************************
 Greg Aharonian                                      srctran@world.std.com
 Source Translation & Optimization                            617-489-3727
 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178