Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!spool.mu.edu!uunet!igor!rutabaga!jls From: jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: ada-c++ productivity Message-ID: Date: 26 Mar 91 02:59:10 GMT References: <1991Mar10.151220.2581@forwiss.uni-passau.de> <11966@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <1991Mar15.224626.27077@aero.org> <12159@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <1554@acf5.NYU.EDU> Sender: news@Rational.COM Distribution: usa Lines: 17 >In fact, DoD looked at the scientific (Fortran) and business (COBOL) worlds >and asked: "why can't we standardize on embedded systems programming?". >The "mandate" applies only to contractors working on software to be embedded >in equipment, and I have heard that DoD has stepped back from even this >position. To quote you verbatim: "Bzzzt. Wrong, but thanks for playing.". The mandate was not only recently STRENGTHENED, it was EXTENDED to apply to non-embedded stuff (including MIS). Waivers are almost non-existent, and getting rarer by the day. Why? Because Ada has proven itself over and over again, and each new success story confirms the wisdom of the original mandate. -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with opinions like mine. -- "When I want your opinion, I'll read it in your entrails."