rsd@SEI.CMU.EDU (03/04/89)
In Volume 89 Issue 66, Jeff Offutt objects to the DoD Ada mandate: > C'mon, be careful what you say. As a scientist/engineer, I do not want > anybody *mandating* the use of technology without clear *technical* proof > that that is in every case the best solution. I don't think that anyone is saying that Ada is the "best" solution in every case. What was needed was a common language whose capabilities were more than adequate in most of the DoD's applications so that the need for experts in the over 1600 approved languages that the DoD has received software in could be phased out. The adoption of Ada has very strong economic benefits for all of us. Regarding Ada's degree of "perfection" -- that is not really a valid engineering issue in the context of the discussion. The DoD can mandate whatever it wants, including Whitworth hardware and ten-penny nails. You, as a contractor, have three options, now that it's way past the time to participate in the language design (which, by the way, was quite fairly and forthrightly done): Don't bid. Bid Ada and do the best you can with it. Bid another language and apply for an exemption on technical merit. But cheer up -- you, as a scientist/engineer can also participate in the Ada 9X revision process independent of your selecting one of the above options. I'm sure that Dr. Goodenough would welcome your inputs. By all means, Jeff, keep those language improvements coming. Richard D'Ippolito rsd@sei.cmu.edu