Free Hawaii trip if you buy my Ada products

Free Hawaii trip if you buy my Ada products

[Gregory Aharonian]

    Well, not from me, but how do you tell the difference between a
competitive, free-market industry, and a customer gouging, socialist industry?

    Consider for example, the current marketing wars going on in the C++
community.  Microsoft, Borland, Centerline and Symantec are going all out
to win market share, doing things the Ada compiler vendors will never do.

    For example, Centerline is offering their ObjectCenter and CodeCenter
C++ programming environments on a CDROM for two weeks of free use.  No 
limitations, you can try out their entire product at no cost for two weeks,
at which time an expiration date kicks in.  You can also get it on tape.
Their products use the Unix programming environment.  Contact them at
1-800-NOW-CNTR to get a copy of their programs - if nothing else to compare
their offering with what you get (or don't get ) from Ada vendors.

    Then consider Symantec.  A challenger in the C++ compiler wars (given
Borland's and Microsoft's dominance), if you buy their professional edition
or upgrade from another vendor to their professional edition, (and I assume
buy in some quantity, though maybe not) they will buy you two free round-trip
tickets to Hawaii.

    Meanwhile, Borland and Microsoft are offering compiler environments
with everything in them but the kitchen sink - compilers, linkers, debuggers,
object browsers, reuse libraries, templates, exception handling and source
code analysis tools - integrated very well in their respective environments.
And more than likely Borland and Microsoft will engage in their price wars
to win market share.

    Free use of a product, trips to Hawaii, near-CASE environments for the
price of a PC compiler - this is the sign of a healthy competitive industry
whose products are in demand.  And the Ada compiler vendors - do we see
free limited use of their product, great marketing promotions, large
environments at reasonable prices, and even more simply, just showing up at
non-Mandated shows?  NYET.

    The Ada community - well I hope everyone has a good time at the Tri-Ada
love fest next month.  It's going to absolutely nothing to help promote Ada
outside the Mandated world, do nothing to expose Ada to the managers outside
the Mandated world making their programming language decisions.  Nothing.
Every wonder why at non-Mandated OO,CASE, etc trade shows at best only one
Ada company shows up, while at Tri-Ada there will be over 40?
-- 
**************************************************************************
 Greg Aharonian                                      srctran@world.std.com
 Source Translation & Optimization                            617-489-3727
 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

Re: Free Hawaii trip if you buy my Ada products

[David Emery]

Here's a question:  Will the absence of C compiler vendors at Tri-Ada
be evidence of the failure of C?
				dave

Re: Free Hawaii trip if you buy my Ada products

[David Tannen]

>    Consider for example, the current marketing wars going on in the C++
>community.  Microsoft, Borland, Centerline and Symantec are going all out
>to win market share, doing things the Ada compiler vendors will never do.

>    Meanwhile, Borland and Microsoft are offering compiler environments
>with everything in them but the kitchen sink - compilers, linkers, debuggers,
>object browsers, reuse libraries, templates, exception handling and source
>code analysis tools - integrated very well in their respective environments.
>And more than likely Borland and Microsoft will engage in their price wars
>to win market share.

Greg,

I have to agree w/ you on this one.  I had the two big compilers for the
MS-DOS world (Alsys and Meridian).  I gave up on the Meridian compiler when
my project got to "big" for their compiler to handle.  I also gave up
on Alsys when it became apparent that they were not going to move to
MS-Windows.  This is after spending +$1500 on Ada compilers and tools.
Now I use Borland Object Pascal (w/ tools cost < $600).  If you only 
compare the languages Ada is a better language IMO.  But if you compare 
working environments and everything you get w/ BP v7.0, BP is a worlds 
ahead of the Alsys/Meridian environments (see Greg's list of features).

As for productivity - I am about 300% more productive using BP than
I ever was w/ Alsys.  I am working on a product that I tried to 1st
develop in Ada.  I gave up after about 18 months.  In the 6 months
since I got BP I am farther along and will be releasing the product
late this Fall.  

Its just a niche product (my product), but there are thousands of
software engineers who are developing niche products in everything
but Ada.  Why?  Better, cheaper tools.

After 6 months of listening to Greg, I am becoming more and more
convinced that the Mandate was a good idea @ one time; but now it
needs to be dropped or seriously modified.  If the mandate is good
enought for DoD, why not DOE, DoL, etc?  Let the vendors compete 
with Borland/Microsoft/gcc/etc in a free and open market.  Maybe then
they will have to product some tools worth buying.  

Any vendors want to respond?  Why do your tools cost so much?  Why
don't they compare w/ equivalent C++/Smalltalk/Object Pascal 
environments for MS-DOS (I don't know as much about tool costs in
the Unix world)?

Just my $0.02.

---
David Tannen
tannend@source.asset.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- "Dependance on wizardry to mitigate the fundamental limitations
--  of software is called 'hacking'."  Grady Booch.
--
-- Developing MS-Windows applications often requires 'wizardry'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Free Hawaii trip if you buy my Ada products

[cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexa]

In article Don@world.std.com, srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:

	<Some things I can take advantage of deleted or moved>
	
>    Then consider Symantec.  A challenger in the C++ compiler wars (given
>Borland's and Microsoft's dominance), if you buy their professional edition
>or upgrade from another vendor to their professional edition, (and I assume
>buy in some quantity, though maybe not) they will buy you two free round-trip
>tickets to Hawaii.

Sounds like fun.  The government restrictions and TI Ethics tells me that I
cannot accept such things for buying products, for good reason.

>    For example, Centerline is offering their ObjectCenter and CodeCenter
>C++ programming environments on a CDROM for two weeks of free use.  No 
>limitations, you can try out their entire product at no cost for two weeks,
>at which time an expiration date kicks in.  You can also get it on tape.
>Their products use the Unix programming environment.  Contact them at
>1-800-NOW-CNTR to get a copy of their programs - if nothing else to compare
>their offering with what you get (or don't get ) from Ada vendors.


I usually have no problem getting evaluation copies of vendor software and
I really like the CenterLine tools for C/C++.  

	<Other things I could take advantage of deleted>

I will agree that the prices for Ada products is steep, especially if only one
vendor supports the target processor you happen to be using.	

---
||   Bill Hope			 || All Opinions are personal and have not  ||
||   ESA - Software Automation	 ||    been approved by Upper Management.   ||
||   Texas Instruments, Inc.	 ||                                  	    ||
||   email: wehope@dseg.ti.com   || Any Facts are Facts as I know them;	    ||
||   voice: 214.995.5618         ||    Others may have more accurate Facts. ||

Re: Free Hawaii trip if you buy my Ada products

[david.c.willett]

>From article <EMERY.93Aug18112331@goldfinger.mitre.org>, by emery@goldfinger.m
itre.org (David Emery):
> Here's a question:  Will the absence of C compiler vendors at Tri-Ada
> be evidence of the failure of C?
> 				dave

You forgot a few -- Cobol
		    Fortran
		    SQL
		    Forth
		    etc.
	:^}

More seriously, I think Greg's wrath is directed at the Ada vendor community
for not evangulizing the language beyond its "birth" at DoD.  I think some
annoyance is justified.  I also feel Greg takes matters a bit far in that
he sees "doom for Ada" around every turn (under every rock?...).

Sure, opinions about Ada vary.  An "old-timer" I once worked with had a good 
line about opinions, he used to say 

	"Opinions are like a**holes, everybody's got one, and thinks 
	 only the other guy's stinks!"

I often think of that saying when reading the "political" material I find
in this newsgroup.  It helps me keep perspective.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dave Willett          AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies

The biggest mistake you can make is to think 
that you work for someone else.

Re: Free Hawaii trip if you buy my Ada products

[Mike Ryer]

Our compilers and tools are so expensive because the market is small.  The
market is small because a) tools are expensive, and b) anyone can see that
the market is small, so why be a poineer?

This is two interlocking vicious circles.  The way to fix it is "priming
the pump".  This is what the mandate was supposed to do, but unfortunately
it was never done.  A few dozen major DOD programs went to Ada, but the
tens of thousands of smaller programs did not.  Only a small percentage of
all computers used for DOD-funded software development have Ada compilers
installed.

So, given unwillingness by DOD to prime the pump, Ada will continue to struggle
along growing at 10-20% per year.  I believe that I'm seeing increasing
dissatisfaction with C and C++, and think that Ada will do even better, on
its own merits, over the next few years.

Ada may and may not be the best solution to an individual program manager's
immediate needs.  After all, he's not going to maintain it.  He's going to
be judged on development costs, and may be best off to use FORTH, or Jovial,
or PL/1, or COBOL if that's what his people know.  My contention is that
it would be better for everyone if they (nearly) all used Ada instead of
making an optimized point-decision for each individual project.

So, Ada will continue to grow, expanding slowly from a base of mandated
programs and people who are sold on software engineering.  The DOD won't get
the expected economy of scale anytime soon, unless they really mandate (see
my Jeweled Bearings note earlier).  But they will get benefits on the programs
that do use it, and there will be enough growth so the tools will eventually
get better and cheaper.

Sorry for the diatribe; flame away.

Mike "if I owned the DOD, ..." Ryer
speaking only for myself

Re: Free Hawaii trip if you buy my Ada products

[Charles H. Sampson]

In article <CC0Bo8.MLE@inmet.camb.inmet.com> ryer@dsd.camb.inmet.com (Mike Ryer
) writes:
>
> ...
>
>Ada may and may not be the best solution to an individual program manager's
>immediate needs.  After all, he's not going to maintain it.  He's going to
>be judged on development costs, and may be best off to use FORTH, or Jovial,
>or PL/1, or COBOL if that's what his people know.  My contention is that
>it would be better for everyone if they (nearly) all used Ada instead of
>making an optimized point-decision for each individual project.
>
> ...

     That's what the mandate is trying to do.  It's telling the military
types who are in a 3-year tour of duty at the beginning of a 30-year project,
"You can use another language if you can demonstrate a cost savings over all
30 years.  Otherwise, we don't want to hear about the amount that can be
saved during your watch."  If only they would can an Admiral or General or
two for ignoring the mandate.  (I have a nominee.)

				Charlie

Re: Free Hawaii trip if you buy my Ada products

[Gregory Aharonian]

>     That's what the mandate is trying to do.  It's telling the military
>types who are in a 3-year tour of duty at the beginning of a 30-year project,
>"You can use another language if you can demonstrate a cost savings over all
>30 years.  Otherwise, we don't want to hear about the amount that can be
>saved during your watch."  If only they would can an Admiral or General or
>two for ignoring the mandate.  (I have a nominee.)
> Charlie

   Unfortunately, you also cannot demonstrate that use of Ada over a
30-year project is cost effective.  While many assume so, there exist
no validated economic model or data sets to prove so.

   In fact, the very few studies that do exist conflict with each other.
While Riefer's data shows Ada is about 30% more cost effective, Caper
Jones' data based on Function Points shows Ada at least 30% less cost
effective, thus canceling each other.
   Similarly, while the Air Force's Ada/C++ study of 1991 wimpily shows
that Ada might be 30% more cost effective (except for where the various
substudies contradict each other), an earlier SEI report undermines most
of the assumptions used by SEI and the others (TRW,NPS,CTA).  So like the
few data sets, the few economic studies also contradict each other.
   Then you have guys like Strassman as head of CIM saying Ada is they
way to go, and saying shortly out of a high office that Ada isn't the
way to go, it is less cost effective.

   So sure, it's hard to prove use of C++ or Smalltalk will be more cost
effective over the 30 year life cycle.  It's also hard to prove use of
Ada will also be more cost effective over the 30 year life cycle.

   And until the DoD shows some willingness to treat this issue with a
competent business/economic analysis, people will be justified in using
whatever language they want.  They can't prove their choice is right, and
you can't prove their choice is wrong.
-- 
**************************************************************************
 Greg Aharonian                                      srctran@world.std.com
 Source Translation & Optimization                            617-489-3727
 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

Re: Free Hawaii trip if you buy my Ada products

[Mark Bayern]

 
In article <CC0Bo8.MLE@inmet.camb.inmet.com>, Mike Ryer (ryer@dsd.camb.inmet.co
m) writes:
>Our compilers and tools are so expensive because the market is small.  The
>market is small because a) tools are expensive, and b) anyone can see that
>the market is small, so why be a poineer?
>
>This is two interlocking vicious circles.  The way to fix it is "priming
>the pump".  This is what the mandate was supposed to do, but unfortunately
>it was never done.  A few dozen major DOD programs went to Ada, but the
>tens of thousands of smaller programs did not.  Only a small percentage of
>all computers used for DOD-funded software development have Ada compilers
>installed.
>
>So, given unwillingness by DOD to prime the pump, Ada will continue to struggl
e
>along growing at 10-20% per year.  I believe that I'm seeing increasing
>dissatisfaction with C and C++, and think that Ada will do even better, on
>its own merits, over the next few years.
>

   [stuff deleted]

>
>Sorry for the diatribe; flame away.
>


OK, I will.  Am I correct in thinking that you want the DOD to
'prime the pump' just like they did with Pascal?  (or was that C? ).

The folks who should have a reall interest in priming the pump
should be the vendors!  After all, they'll be the ones to profit
if it takes off.  If you need an example, I can try to find my old
$29.95 copy of JRT Pascal for CP/M.  

Mark

Re: Free Hawaii trip if you buy my Ada products

[Charles H. Sampson]

In article <SRCTRAN.93Aug19224646@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory
 Aharonian) writes:
>
>>     That's what the mandate is trying to do.  It's telling the military
>>types who are in a 3-year tour of duty at the beginning of a 30-year project,
>>"You can use another language if you can demonstrate a cost savings over all
>>30 years.  Otherwise, we don't want to hear about the amount that can be
>>saved during your watch."  If only they would can an Admiral or General or
>>two for ignoring the mandate.  (I have a nominee.)
>> Charlie  [<-- That's me.]
>
>   Unfortunately, you also cannot demonstrate that use of Ada over a
>30-year project is cost effective.  While many assume so, there exist
>no validated economic model or data sets to prove so.
>
>  ...
>
>   So sure, it's hard to prove use of C++ or Smalltalk will be more cost
>effective over the 30 year life cycle.  It's also hard to prove use of
>Ada will also be more cost effective over the 30 year life cycle.

     I'll paraphrase the mandate again, even throwing in a little background
that doesn't actually appear in the text of the resolution.  It's saying, "We
made a decision in the late '70s that the way to reduce software costs in the
DoD is to rely on a single language.  Now that we have that language, that's
what will be used unless it can be shown that costs can be reduced even more
by using something else."

     As you say, it will be hard for the C++ and Smalltalk advocates to come
up with the necessary data.  In legal parlance, the mandate is simply estab-
lishing the burden of proof.  (I'm not a lawyer, but I like to play one from
time to time.)  In other words, it's no free-for-all.  Each project is not
free to choose its own language.  If somebody wants to use something other
than Ada, the burden of proving cost-effectiveness is on them; the Ada pro-
ponents are not required to prove that Ada is more cost-effective.

				Charlie

Re: Free Hawaii trip if you buy my Ada products

[Gregory Aharonian]

>     I'll paraphrase the mandate again, even throwing in a little background
>that doesn't actually appear in the text of the resolution.  It's saying, "We
>made a decision in the late '70s that the way to reduce software costs in the
>DoD is to rely on a single language.  Now that we have that language, that's
>what will be used unless it can be shown that costs can be reduced even more
>by using something else."

   Well then I say, given the questionable economic analysis I have seen in
the Ada world in the last ten years (just check out the confusion at the SEI
and STARS, and Strassman's contradictory statements on Ada economics), I say
that I question the economic analysis of the 1970's that led to the decision
to adopt Ada.  I would bet any amount of money that if the original quesiton
that led to Ada was asked today, the answer would not be Ada today.
   Another reason I question the economic analyses of the 1970's is that
the DoD never took steps to verify through data collection and analysis all
of the promises made at the start of Ada (and programs like STARS) when
great benefits were predicted.  And when programs like STARS admit that some
of their initial promises were lies, it is not much of a stretch to wonder
about the validty of the promises made by Ada.

    Look, most of the people currently and previously involved with Ada are
not businessmen.  They are bureaucrats, whether they work for the government
or not.  There is no community sense of Ada marketing, publicity, return
on investments, competition, etc.  That's why C/C++ is kicking ass outside
the Mandated World - their proponentts are businessmen paying careful
attention to how they spend their own money.  Look at DoD software reuse.
The DoD is spending tens of millions of dollars a year on software reuse,
yet no one involved has ever spent their own money on Ada reuse as a
business practice.  Is it no wonder that the country has received nothing
in return for this investment?  Similarly look at STARS.  Again, few
involved spend their own money on Ada software engineering products and
fight for market share.  If you can afford to go to Tri-Ada, ask yourself
why at general industry shows, at best only one or two booths are staffed
by Ada companies, while at Tri-Ada, over forty companies will be present.
Ada is not an industry, but a co-dependents society.  "Hi! My name is John,
and I can't stop spending other people's money on Ada".

    Ada is a great language.  Unfortunately it is surrounded by some of
the most failed economic and business practices this side of the ex-Iron
curtain.   Billions of dollars spent on Ada projects times a government
multiplier effect, and Ada has less than a two percent share of the modern
programming language market?  Sounds like a sheltered industry to me.

    You ask me to accept a policy developed twenty years ago in a completely
different software engineering and hardware environment as being relevant
today.  That is utter nonsense, something you wouldn't support and tout for
a second if you were spending significant amounts of your own money on the
langauge.  You think the people at STARS would pay with their own money the
bills they are racking up giving people toll-free 800-number access to the
ASSET repository.  Not for one second.

   The armed forces of this country decided to use and decided to drop the
cavalry, rifles, sailing ships, and other weapons of war.  And as soon as
the DoD can find a face-saving way to drop the Mandate, it will.  Tuttle
and Strassman's comments are as reflective of general DoD feelings as
anything else I have heard spouted by DoD types.  I get too much private
email with gripes and frustrations from all levels of the Army, Air Force,
Navy, DoD schools, SEI, STARS, etc, to believe that harmony reigns with
Ada policy.

    I don't believe any of the economic and business claims that the
officialdom of Ada put forth.  I have seen too many stunts like the one
SEI pulled in 1990 and 1991 to believe otherwise (and what's worse is that
no one knows what I am referring to).

>If somebody wants to use something other than Ada, the burden of proving
>cost-effectiveness is on them; the Ada proponents are not required to prove
>that Ada is more cost-effective.

"You women want to vote and govern?  Show us how that will be better than a
society where only men vote."

It was an idiotic argument two thousand years ago, it was an idiotic argument
one hundred years ago, and it is an idiotic argument today, no matter what it
is applied to.


-- 
**************************************************************************
 Greg Aharonian                                      srctran@world.std.com
 Source Translation & Optimization                            617-489-3727
 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

Re: Free Hawaii trip if you buy my Ada products

[MILLS,JOHN M.]

In article <186@mlb.win.net> mbayern@mlb.win.net (Mark Bayern) writes:
>
> 
>In article <CC0Bo8.MLE@inmet.camb.inmet.com>, Mike Ryer (ryer@dsd.camb.inmet.c
om) writes:
>>So, given unwillingness by DOD to prime the pump, Ada will continue to strugg
le
>>along growing at 10-20% per year.  I believe that I'm seeing increasing
>>dissatisfaction with C and C++, and think that Ada will do even better, on
>>its own merits, over the next few years.
>   [stuff deleted]
>The folks who should have a reall interest in priming the pump
>should be the vendors!  After all, they'll be the ones to profit
>if it takes off.  If you need an example, I can try to find my old
>$29.95 copy of JRT Pascal for CP/M.  

Unfortunate example, I'm afraid.  JRT Pascal sold for near $300 for a
couple of years, with lukewarm response, the took off like a ruanway fire
engine when they re-priced it at $29.95.  Problems were that (1) the compiler
is pretty fragile, spinning its wheels when it hits some source errors, and
(2) the libraries, especially the trancendentals, were "unsafe" and inaccurate
in limit conditions.  That meant that each $29.95 sale generated a fair load
of customer support and some irritation.  (I had to rewrite some math source.)
The company went rich, then broke in a hurry.  I understand JRT Pascal has been
released for free public distribution.  I wonder who was still around to
release it.  (I can supply copies on 8" diskettes, BTW. [8*>)

Interestingly, the language had some nice features (automatic loading and
purging provided a primitive form of virtual memory, for code), and wasn't
_badly_ reviewed when it was expensive.  Borland's Turbo Pascal 3.0 was a
better value at $99.99 than JRT at $29.95.  Much significant commercial
cp/m software at that time sold around $300, so TP 3.0 was also a bargain, and
a lot of "production" code was written with it.

I think that one moral to draw from all this is: "Nothing can kill
a bad product faster than good advertising."  (paraphrase from David
Oglyvie [sp?], _Confessions_of_an_Advertising_Man_)

The sales-generated demand for customer support has been touched on here in
connection with pricing.  It is surely important.  The mass marketeers of
personal computer software must provide as routine, installation and on-line
help which must be the envy of most other computer users.  (I use "personal
computer" in the inclusive sense -- no silly Mac/PC/NeXt flames, please.)

Regards --jmm--
 
-- 
John M. Mills, SRE; Georgia Tech/GTRI/TSDL, Atlanta, GA 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!jm59
Internet: john.m.mills@gtri.gatech.edu
Say "Goodnight," Gracie.