MIL-STD-1815 missing: FOI for the DoD time?
Craig Carey
Can you get made public, a version of the Ada 1980 standard,
named MIL-STD-1815 or MIL-STD-1815a (as far as I am aware in
that matter).
This Google website forum does not have the name that was
given by you since the "."s (dots) are missing. I suggest
you consider closing this and create a list with 2 hyphens,
and those with proper Usenet clients may not mind if you
thread in a new message giving a different home for the
forum.
I could easily send an e-mail request into the DoD seeking
the document. The statement of principles, in
[Section, etc.?] "1.1 Design Goals"
seemed to be rapidly deleted from the later Ada standards.
In particular the principle of not adapting. The principle
of making no 'adaptation' or learning-response to material
circumstances or the results of contacts with students and
persons (eg. the latest small mistakes in thought of
sofcheck.com of TT) is allocated an importance ranking
about first. The words
re standing are:
"Perhaps most importantly, none of the above goals was
considered something that could be achieved after the
fact. ..."
That seems to be a principle about principles but the
task of filling in the similar principle is envisaged.
Please check the URL before posting any up. Creating a
planetary newsgroup is sure to be too difficult.
A real newsserver might improve the list. For interest
I re-give requests that I wrote to Mr Berman and Jeffrey
Carter, managers of the Team-Ada list (of very low value):
* change the name
* ban the ARG and members of it. It might not be possible
for the ARG to have run a more vicious and full scale
attack on the public than what France, IBM, and Adacore's
Mr Dewar, have actually done. It goes down sweetly in USA
and in the USSR (the latter unable to get its tendencies
to philisophicalness running and USA satisfied to not
know on/by the 'dot'.
CLA didn't the document produced last time I prompted for
it. I guess you can't too.
No mailing list for universities can be popular if men
of the ARG are not banned (ie. actually, blocked from
writing). Of course the likelihood is that you have not
got anything much here. We can jump from Ada 80 to the
new language and 9x is disappoingting since the C++ hype
of object orientation is safety threat and omitted the
obvious far more important step of 'syntactic sugar' for
heavily nested records. Taft did stop with the stupidity of
dispatching procs, but even personally believed Java was
important. As everything crashed at the first time he
forcefully wanted Ada discussions to become secret such
occurred: reasoning from a date produced by my arg1 Ada
program analyzing the Ada Zip file of ada-auth.org (OC
Systems). A language designed by: (a) the credible DoD ?,
or the shifting pack of liars and cash seeking vendor
nerds.
Craig Carey
__________________________________________________________________________
G A Craig Carey <rese...@ijs.co.nz> [Avondale, Auckland city, New Zealand]
(Administrative fairness: http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/pdf/fairness_stds.pdf)