From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_05 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 29 Dec 92 16:11:50 GMT
From: sampson@cod.nosc.mil  (Charles H. Sampson)
Subject: Re: C++ vs. Ada -- Is Ada loosing?
Message-ID: <1992Dec29.161150.23301@nosc.mil>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <withrow.13.0@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov> withrow@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Ji
m Withrow) writes:

>If I did not work on a project which REQUIRED the use of embedded Ada, I 
>don't think I would have purchased that 30K cross compiler from Alsys.  I 
>see no justification for the high cost of that compiler.  (That cost 6x more 
>than the cost of the 486/DX2-66 computer you use to work on the project!)  
>Imagine if you had 4 people working on the project, you would need 48K for
>the four compilers, for just the first year!

     While I can't defend Alsys's specific prices without more information,
one justification for the high cost of a compiler for a naked machine is
that the vendor has had to develop an entire executive (rather than tying
into an existing DOS or UNIX) and must amortize that cost over a small
customer base.  Basically, the high cost is for the RTE and the cross-
compiling utilities, not for the compiler itself.

				Charlie