Re: Ada is getting more popular!

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 04:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:47:38 -0700 (PDT), Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>>> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote on comp.lang.ada:
>>>>> As for existing companies offering compilers, �you have mentioned
>>>>> RRSoftware, there are more Ada companies, some of them offer
>>>>> compilers at quite the usual prices. You'll have to ask, though.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt that there is a single company which earns anything from selling
>>>> compilers. Those who sell or give compilers for free refund from somewhere
>>>> else.
>>>>
>>>> This model (also known from Socialism) is not sustainable, so we are
>>>> observing the number of compilers for all languages declining, not just for
>>>> Ada.
>>
>>> I don't see what the "sell services, not software" model has to do with
>>> socialism.
>>
>> Redistribution is the key. You pay/invest in not what you get/sell. It is a
>> distorted relationship between the producer and consumer.
> 
> When a greedy capitalist multinational invests in advertizements, do
> they sell advertizements to you?
> No. But marketing is a major part of
> their expenditure.

Yes, and the money they are investing in the advertising are calculated in
the product cost. Therefore you and me are paying for that. Therefore they,
in effect, sell advertisements to us.

> If the software is proprietary, you cannot tell
> how buggy it is or will be in the future

The customer cannot anyway. Can you tell the quality of food you buy, the
car you drive etc? You cannot and you need not. It is the market +
liability regulations, which can in the end and only statistically ensure
product quality.

The idea that a compiler user must be an expert in compiler construction
only shows how immature the state of affairs is. It is a stone ages'
technological relationships with minimum or none labor division.

> and you must depend on a
> single supplier for the services.

Only if the supplier is the monopolist. But we were talking about a
*market*!

> If the software is Free Software,
> there is no catch and no hidden bugs; all the bugs are in the open and
> you don't have to buy services from the same people that provided the
> first dose.

Natural economy? No, again it is not a working model. Openness brings
nothing to the customers. It does to the competitors and/or to the
supervising bodies. In absence of the former (there is no market) and the
latter (there is no regulations), openness does not improve quality.

>> As for services. If you sell them, sooner or later you come to the idea of
>> selling them without developing *useful* software. What makes a service
>> profitable? The point is that service is secondary to the product. It is a
>> parasite living on the host. The success of the former means nothing good
>> for the latter.
> 
> No, the service is not secondary to the product and you know that. Why
> else does your company pay for AdaCore's services if they can get the
> same compiler and libraries for free?

1. GNAT Pro /= GNAT GPL;
2. We have another model, we sell software, i.e. we needed GM GPL;
3. AdaCore services have a great value well *beyond* the compiler.

In an ideal world AdaCore would sell both the compiler and the services
separately. In the real world I don't know how long AdaCore would remain
committed to Ada. I am afraid that it is the enthusiasm of AdaCore staff
rather than the pressure of non-existing market, which keeps this
commitment. Enthusiasm is not sustainable.

>>> And this model seems to be more than sustainable for AdaCore;
>>> this is probably because they made the concious decision *not* to address
>>> the SOHO market (i.e. high volume, low margins) at all.
>>
>> USSR existed for 80 years before it collapsed.
> 
> You still have not provided a satisfactory explanation of why you
> think that the "sell services, no software" is socialism, so the
> comparison with the USSR is meaningless to me.

That is because you were never exposed to Soviet propaganda. One of the
main arguments of which was: the salary is low because the rest (of what a
western worker earns) is given for free in the form of state *services*
(medicine, education, job security, retirement pension, apartment etc). 

There is nothing wrong with selling services, it is wrong to *refund* one
thing with another.

A commitment to refund based on enthusiasm wears off. The fourth generation
of soviet people wasn't committed anymore.

>> That this model of software development (not only compiler development) is
>> not socially/economically sustainable is obvious when you consider present
>> software quality (miserable), the types of software being developed (mostly
>> useless/damaging), the amount of resources spend directly/indirectly on
>> software (huge waste).
> 
> No, I explain these things by plain and simple greed and short-
> sightedness from most people managing developers and from most
> developers themselves.

Sorry, but people are greedy and short-sighted. I have no other people for
you...

> Socialism has nothing to do with that.

Of course it does. Another major thesis of Socialism was education of a New
Man, people who would fit and enjoy the new society. See, if the idea does
not work, there must be something wrong with the people. Let us teach them.
[ I hope there is no need to remind what follows when the people refuse
being taught... ]

> Proof:
> the miserable state of software you describe exists also in (some)
> very capitalist companies selling high-end, expensive proprietary
> software, especially those who charge only a small fraction of the
> license fees in "maintenance fees".  These companies are simply not
> interested in fixing the bugs that affect their customers; they are
> only interested in selling "upgrades".  And the unrealistic time-to-
> market pressures (e.g. arbitrarily fixed release schedules) make it
> nearly impossible for them to ship bug-free software in the first
> place.

It only shows the evident: absence of market produces monopolies, which
necessarily start abusing customers.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de