Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucla-cs!ucivax!jarthur!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!gatech!purdue!haven!umd5!terminus.umd.edu!brad
From: brad@terminus.umd.edu (Brad Balfour)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: ada-c++ productivity
Summary: There was/is no mandate
Keywords: Ada, C++, Mandate, NASA
Message-ID: <8298@umd5.umd.edu>
Date: 21 Mar 91 17:40:58 GMT
References: <1991Mar15.224626.27077@aero.org> <jls.669170821@rutabaga> <12159@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Sender: news@umd5.umd.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: EVB Software Engineering, Inc.
Lines: 23

In article <12159@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>The software for the Space Station
>(which may never be launched anyway) is being written in Ada because of
>government mandate, not necessarily because Ada is the best language for
>the job.
>
>--
>Joe Buck
>jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu	 {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck

In the interest of accuracy, I think that it is important to note that
NASA and the Space Station project were under no mandate to use a particular
language for the Space Station software. In fact, a series of detailed
evaluations were made several years ago and it was the decision of the
Space Station Program Office that Ada was the best choice for that project.

NASA was not forced into using Ada, they chose to use Ada. Similarly,
the FAA was not forced to use Ada on its Advanced Automation System, but
chose to use Ada.

Brad Balfour
EVB Software Engineering, Inc.
brad@terminus.umd.edu