From: mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman)
Subject: Re: Open Systems closed to Ada?
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:25:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.131655.23725@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>
>>IMHO, DoD is doing the right thing by opting for a strong and enforceable
>>standard. Shooting at a moving target is no fun. I don't often defend
>>Defense, but dammit, I think they are right on target here. Contractors
>>who want to experiment with a moving state of the art with MY tax money
>>are just outta luck.
>
>Can we actually document any savings, or are we still working on
>guesswork and theory in this area?  Anyway, wouldn't it make more
>sense to freeze on a per-contract basis rather than to Mandate frozen
>technology for a dozen years at a time?
>
My experience is that the projects are sufficiently complex that the numbers
can be cooked to show savings or lack of savings according to the motive
of the writer. Lots of people are trying to show that Ada saves money,
and because they want these numbers to come out right, they do. Others
want just as desperately to show no savings, and I'm sure the numbers
would come out their way too. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I don't put
all that much faith in these arguments, one way or the other.

The Mandate give a starting date (June 1, 1991), but no end date. What
makes you think that DoD will NECESSARILY "freeze technology" for the
next eleven years? If the technology changes such as to make it
manifestly obvious that the Mandate should go away, I'm sure that
it can be made to do so. Lots of clever people at DoD and on the Hill.

In the meantime, in effect the decision IS being made project by project.
How else? Each project is contracted for individually. If the manager
can make the case that Ada is manifestly not cost-effective, (s)he
can get that waiver or exception. The practical effect of the mandate
is to make the nay-sayers defend their case, instead of making the yea-sayers
defend _their_ case. I see nothing wrong with that. 

The _psychological_ effect of the 1990 Mandate is why I think it was a dumb
idea. The rest of the world says "how good could Ada be if DoD has to
force it on its own contractors?" and shuts off discussion, figuring
it's not worth investigating further. 

I happen to believe that the jury is still out on cost-effectiveness _on 
a single project_ - that one can cook the numbers any way one likes, 
because the differences are not well-understood and probably at the margins 
of the project, and also because the language/OS field is very fluid
these days and compiler version K running on system version P could
give VERY different numbers from K+1 and P+1. It comes down to a 
question of will. People who wish to operate in good faith and give
Ada their best shot without endlessly nay-saying will, in my idealistic
view of the world, manage to come up with a good and cost-effective
project. Those who wish to keep sabotaging an effort will, I'm sure,
find endlessly creative ways to do so.

The _global_ cost-effectiveness of doing a large number of 
projects with a small number of languages seems obvious to me.
Frankly, I really wish people would settle down, accept the Mandate
as given for the time being, shut up and get the work done.
That is, IMHO, the best way to spend my tax dollars.

Reminds me of a saying I learned in Holland: "Niet kakelen,
eieren leggen." Stop cackling and lay eggs.

Mike Feldman
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada