larry@JPL-VLSI.ARPA (12/01/85)
Most of the topics listed are totally inappropriate for SIGADA to consider. There are other forums designed specifically such issues, including SIGSOFT and the STARS program. We can only needlessly duplicate such efforts. Several topics mentioned ARE our responsibility but I would guess we are already doing something about them. That includes education (CREASE), SW engineering practices (METHODMAN), several others. Larry @ jpl-vlsi
dan@pokey.UUCP (12/01/85)
As a member of SIGAda, I would also like to express my disapproval of any involvement of SIGAda in this area. Ada, in spite of the mystique some seem to wrap around it, is just another programming language, and can be learned by anyone with a reasonable background in computer science. The idea of licensing and apprenticeship implies that the skill of Ada programming is something akin to the skill set required of an actuary, or a CPA, or a plumber. That is pompous nonsense. Not only does it overestimate the importance of the programming task, but it grossly underestimates the significance of the non-programming skills that go into making a competent computer professional. No one does Ada or its users a service by announcing publicly that Ada is so different from all other languages that one needs apprentice and test into the inner circle in order to be considered a "professional" Ada programmer. If the government wants to institute some bogus civil service type test, fine. If an employer wants to give some sort of proficiency test to prospective employees, also fine. To my understanding however, the ACM is an organization which exists to promote the state of the art and continuing education. It does not and should not exist to screen potential employees for government and industry.