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=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 30 Apr 93 16:04:00 GMT
From: seas.gwu.edu!mfeldman@uunet.uu.net  (Michael Feldman)
Subject: Re: Incorporating 9X into Ada courses
Message-ID: <1993Apr30.160400.25617@seas.gwu.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <C6AuFs.GEr@ddciiny.UUCP> jls@ddciiny.UUCP (Jonathan Schilling) writ
es:
>
>Not to get into the general argument about whether the existence of the
>Ada market as a whole is due to lack of competition, it must be noted
>that *within* the Ada market, there is definitely competition.  There are
>a number of different Ada vendors, and for any given host[/target], there
>are usually three or more Ada compiler products to choose from.  Having
>worked for Ada compiler vendors for over eight years, I can attest that
>this business is *very* competitive, and that if you don't put out a
>competitive product, you suffer.        

I have no doubt that this is true. The relatively small number of (generally)
small Ada companies tear each other apart to win contracts. There is no
question that there is competition here. But the pie for whose slices the
companies are competing is not infinite, nor continuing to grow within
the mandated world; eventually it must saturate.
>
>As for prices *within* the Ada market, there are several different pricing
>strategies around.  It is not always the lowest-cost vendors that do the
>best; whether this is a because Ada customers are more concerned with
>quality than cost, or this is a consequence of the funding and procurement
>practices in the Ada world, I'm not sure.
>
Undoubtedly the DoD managers realize that the cost of a compiler is a
relatively trivial part of even a smallish project, so they can buy
perceived quality or performance instead of price. This is fine as far
as it goes, and is in fact a realization of the Ada dream that validation
would guarantee a relatively standard language with minimal "feature wars."

The trouble is that it does not go far enough. The Ada industry realizes
this, but from the perspective of those of us who promote Ada outside
the mandate - because it's a GOOD language, dammit - the industry is
using a disastrous, even cynical approach.

Instead of reorganizing to make Ada a dual-use technology that's just as
useful outside the DoD as inside, the Ada companies are keeping their Ada
prices too high to compete adequately with OTHER LANGUAGES. Instead of
building _Ada_ compilers and tools that can compete with industrial-strength
C++ and Fortran systems, Ada's supposed friends are competing with C++
by building _C++_ compilers and tools. Ask around, you'll see.

All of which leaves us Ada fans outside the DoD mandate essentially out in
the cold. I've thought for years that that's what they were doing to us;
what inspired my nasty post yesterday was that an Ada vendor finally admitted
it to me.

Mike Feldman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman
co-chair, SIGAda Education Committee

Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
School of Engineering and Applied Science
The George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052 USA
(202) 994-5253 (voice)
(202) 994-5296 (fax)
mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)

"The most important thing is to be sincere, 
and once you've learned how to fake that, you've got it made." 
-- old show-business adage
------------------------------------------------------------------------