Re: Ada generics are bad

[munck@Mill-Creek-Systems.com (Robert Munck)]

On Mon, 13 Apr 1998 00:58:23 -0700, matthew_heaney@acm.org (Matthew
Heaney) wrote:
>... If there's a problem, and I have the source, then at
>least I can fix it; ...

Nonsense.  You fix a "broken" feature so that it works the way
you want it to, and then the developer comes out with a new 
release in which that feature either stays the way it was or
is changed to work a different way.  Now what do you do? "Fix"
it again?  Change all of you existing documents that use that
feature of the app?  Either way, you end up spending all of 
your time fixing all of your application packages.


>This attitude of a developer "needing to retain control of source" is only
>a sign that the developer has no other resource to control, such as a
>software development process.  It's a desperate attempt to conceal the fact
>that he barely knows what he is doing.

So say I hire ten great software engineers and establish a Level 6
development process. Then we spend a year and $2 million developing
a killer app.  You are saying that we have nothing to show for that?
That the system we've developed isn't worth anything? It would have
been easier just to burn the money.


>Here's a hint: a mature software development shop owns a process, not
>software.  Software is merely the output of the process.  Just like the
>manufacturing line at Toyota.  Or Sony. Or Motorola. Or any other
>manufacturer of material goods.

OK, I have a great process.  I've never developed any software,
but SEI says I'm level XVII.  No programmers, either, but one
insanely-great process.  How many investors do you think I'll get?
Would you be willing to send me your life's savings?


>Retaining control of source does not bode well for the developer's ability
>to write any other software,

Nor does it bode ill.  In fact, choosing not to give away the product
of your work has nothing whatsoever to do with your ability to do
more work.


>... and customers are admonished to stay away when
>they have the choice.

"Admonished?" By whom?


> there are many programmers out there who make it their business
>to see that consumers of software do have that choice. ... Who would
>you rather write software for you: Bill Gates, or Richard Stallman?

Let's see, Bill Gates is worth $50 billion.  Richard Stallman is
worth maybe $4.95.  Those programmers aren't "making it their
business...", they're making it their hobby.


>If you persist in this anachronistic idea that it's better for the
>developer to "retain control" of source, then you only prevent yourself
>from improving your ability to develop any software at all.

Again, there's no logical connection between the two things.


>Suppose we take a little unscientific survey of comp.lang.ada readers: Who
>do you think has the more mature process: the Advanced Technology Center,
>or Ada Core Technologies?

No idea.


>  If you had a choice in buying software from ATC
>or ACT, one of whom (ATC) said the source was closed, and the other (ACT)
>open, from whom would you buy?

The one that thinks that what they do has some value and doesn't
give it away to all comers.


>The software world is changing, Chris.  Why not change with it?

If you think that it's changing in the direction of increased
release of source code by developing companies, you're living
in a software dreamworld. 

Bob Munck
Mill Creek Systems LC