Re: Towards a free GNU Ada

["Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." <rleif@RLEIF.COM>]

From: Bob Leif, Ph.D.
To: Robert Dewar, Ph.D., James Rogers, and Comp.Lang.Ada

On Thu, 3 Jul 1997 08:28:20 -0600
James Rogers posted several suggestions on how to improve GNAT's long term
success.  I supported and still support his second suggestion:

2. * Form a consortium of GNAT users, with annual dues which will be paid
to ACT to provide public support for GNAT.

Robert Dewar has been critical of my suggestions as to how to increase
ACT's revenues.
I suspect that many of us, at present, who use GNAT would like to
compensate ACT. However, ACT's pricing structure is an example of what I
like to call the human nature boolean type, too much or too little.

Robert Dewar quoted me .
Date:    Tue, 8 Jul 1997 10:19:18 -0400
From:    Robert Dewar <dewar@MERV.CS.NYU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Towards a free GNU Ada

Bob Leif said

<<
"I have only one problem with suggestion 2.  I believe that any useful
additions to a compiler that are initially made for GNAT and are NOT funded
by ACT should be copyrighted in a form that they can be used by other Ada
vendors. This includes being incorporated into these vendors commercial
products.  The cost to the other Ada vendors should be the same as that
bourn by ACT."

"In short, I believe that we small operators and independent users should
financially reimburse ACT, but at a reasonable price, and in a manner to
maintain competition in the Ada compiler business."

I  feel that my comments speak for themselves.  I will admit that part of
my reason for trying to find a means to compensate ACT was pure
self-interest.  Money talks!  ACT, like the vast majority of companies, has
to put most of its energies into supporting its paying customers.  In the
past, one of the reasons for Ada not achieving the market share it deserves
was the marketing focus on UNIX rather than DOS and now Windows 95.  ACT's
business model appears to be directed to the Work-Station vendors rather
than the mass Windows and, at present, Macintosh market.

I deliberately took my discussion with Professor Dewar off-line.  Firstly,
to clarify the facts and secondly there has been more than enough
extraneous material in Comp.Lang.Ada.
My final private question and comment was: "What is the usage of the
different versions of the GPL including the unmodified GPL by the Academic
community?  I believe that most of us who have reservations about the
unmodified GPL applaud the work by you and others to promote the use of
modified GPLs."

Now concerning my own code and that of my client.  Firstly, I have not
decided what to do with the Generic_Money package which I am creating.  I
do not know whether it will work.  I created it only because I felt that
the code that had to be prepared in a very short time for Object Magazine
(R. C. Leif, T. Moran, and R. Brukardt, "Ada 95, The Language Speaks for
Itself", Object Magazine, Implementation Languages, 7 (3) pp. 32-39, May
(1997) should be redone in a true object oriented manner.

I am forced to use GNAT because the other Ada vendors for Windows have not
completed the Information Systems Annex.  I still believe that one of the
weakest points of all of the Ada compilers that I have used is the error
messages.  I applaud Professor Dewar's suggestions about future
improvements and encouraged him concerning their commercial utility.  I
suspect that the messages from other languages may be worse than Ada's.
However, because Ada finds errors at compile time, problems with error
messages become obvious.

As for my client, the release of the sources is totally the client's
decision.  I actually favor release of source code wherever possible and
have been the most vociferous member of the AdaSage Engineering and
Management Group concerning this subject.  It is an excellent business deal
to give your customers the opportunity to fix and improve your product.
One great commercial advantage of Ada is that there is an excellent,
traditional compromise solution. The package specifications can be
published independently of the bodies and these specifications can serve as
a very important part of the documentation.

Robert C. Leif Ph.D.
Vice President Ada_Med, a Division of Newport Instruments
(619)582-0437