Re: Marketing Ada

[mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman)]

In article <1993Mar12.140219.5705@mcc.com> breland@mcc.com writes:

[stuff deleted]
>
>To carry your analogy further, Mike, several vendors have elected to jump
>on the new C++ bandwagon rather than propel Ada forward on its own merits.
>So what we'll soon see are vendors with product lines supporting Ada, C,
>AND C++.  This reactive response is typical of defense contractors (not all
>mind you), who tend to jump with the latest technology, leaving perfectly
>good products behind.  I fear such an environment will cause Ada to languish
>in a pitiful pool of ignominy.

Well, don't give up hope yet. So far, the vendors aren't really abandoning
Ada, even if they are diversifying into C++, and most of them are. From the
myopic business perspective we've been discussing here, it only makes good
sense for them to go where the bucks are, especially if (as in Meridian's
CASE case), they are just selling a tool they've licensed from somewhere
else and didn't put resources into.

I've used another imprefect analogy about the Mandate: it's protectionism
and can be seen as analogous to Detroit's demand for protection from the
Yellow Peril. Mr. Iacocca's company (and the others too, but he's he most
vocally hypocritical) sells tremendous numbers of Asian cars, and US
cars with Asian engines, even while he screams for protection. Assuming
the Ada industry had something to do with the call for the Mandate (and I
don't really know whether they did, but I guess it's a safe assumption),
they wanted Congressional protection for Ada even while they diversify into
C++. If the Mandate was written with _no_ industry prodding, I'll stand
corrected.
>
>>There are signs of change, but - without slamming any one company 
>>or individual - I think our skepticism is well-founded and even
>>constructive. 
>
>How true.
>
Glad you agree. Let's keep letting them know, publicly and privately, our
thoughts on this.

Mike Feldman