From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE, LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,bf43a183ce108291 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-08 11:40:01 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!nntpserver.pppl.gov!princeton!rutgers!sgigate.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!ames!hookup!swrinde!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!uunet!psinntp!ocsystems!kdh From: kdh@ocsystems.com (Kevin D. Heatwole) Subject: Re: Government Policy on Ada Acquisitions Message-ID: <1994Sep7.155252.14027@ocsystems.com> Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 15:52:52 GMT References: Organization: OC Systems, Inc. Date: 1994-09-07T15:52:52+00:00 List-Id: Jim Dorman (aetechca@powergrid.electriciti.com ) writes: > > The way to ruin a budding commercial enterprise is for the > government to PAY NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS TO DEVELOP THINGS AND > THEN GIVE THEM AWAY. For the benefit of those in academia, this is > how things are actually working. The problem with this approach is > that it ruins the incentive of industry to compete. Why should > Alsys, AETECH or RRS commit $900K to develop and maintain a > validated $99 Ada9X compiler for academia, when the government > issues a non-competitive sole-source contract to NYU for $2.5 > million dollars to build a non-validated GNAT compiler from > scratch to be given away free? > Being an employee of one of the "budding commercial enterprises" in the Ada industry, I, too, share Jim's concerns (I'd like to remain employed ;-)). The costs of competing in this environment are very high (you need a minimum of at least $1 million a year in on-going revenue if you are even going to think about supporting an Ada compiler). That being said, I am still confident in our ability to compete with any "cheap" compiler, even if it is "of high quality", but it does make you think twice before entering the game. Regardless, I think it is good to have a discussion on the effects on the existing Ada compiler vendors (there are fewer and fewer these days) of a potentially "commercially viable" compiler built with public money. One solution might have been to build into the GNAT contract with the government, the restriction that GNAT could not be validated for a specified period (say, until the year 2000), even by an independent commercial enterprise. This would slow the introduction of free compilers into the government for "real" projects (where commercial Ada vendors currently derive much of their revenue), but not prevent the government from using it in places where "validated" compilers are required. It is in the best long term interest of the government to have a thriving Ada market. Also, the validation status of an Ada compiler in the commercial market place (non-US government) is of little concern to commercial users, so GNAT/Ada would succeed/fail on its own merits. Anyway, this is just my opinion. I only speak for myself and do not speak for my employer. Kevin D. Heatwole OC Systems, Inc.