From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Kevin Chadwick Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Was the mandate change a poor decision? Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 00:47:20 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:47:20 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="017eeba1f12831165def9e7cbf06ec3a"; logging-data="267238"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX198NEPXmKqrWD16DKqYP2WhwcDRI/D/0VM=" User-Agent: PhoNews/3.13.3 (Android/13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ILKdT5GUyA/HFH+jhx0qqaYt+Dg= Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:66166 List-Id: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/260096.260385 This paper completely ignored arguments such as the mandate apparently only requiring demonstrating an expectation of being more cost effective than Ada. Replaced by a mandate that is apparently ignored as it is basically reduced to an aim of being cost effective without competition to Ada which was designed to be cost effective and so hard to beat. History seems to have shown that he was completely wrong and in my opinion the mandate change has inflated costs to tax payers significantly, such as in the F-35/JSF program. Do you think that this paper had any influence on making the mandate impotent? Am I ignorant of improvements that the mandate change has brought about? -- Regards, Kc