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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ba18d626276a71e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." Subject: Re: Towards a free GNU Ada Date: 1997/07/15 Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970715210722.00714834@mail.4dcomm.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 257334358 Sender: Ada programming language X-Sender: rleif@mail.4dcomm.com Comments: cc: James Rogers Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-07-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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 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