Re: The gnat binder (was: Re: Aerospace Industry says Drop Ada Mandate)

Re: The gnat binder (was: Re: Aerospace Industry says Drop Ada Mandate)

[Ted Dennison]

In article <34a2et$9lq@info.epfl.ch>, weber@lglsun.epfl.ch (Mats Weber) writes:
|> In article <347roa$8ob@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
|> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
|> 
|> > As for Verdix compiling new sources in the right order, I am willing to bet
|> > that it does NOT properly analyze pragma inline cases. In particular, as
|> > I mentioned, there are cases where no order of compilation works in a
|> > traditional system. Consider:
|> 
|> In some situations, it (Verdix) fails when analyzing dependencies on
|> generics (no inlines involved). I often have to tell the compiler to
|> first make the generic, and then its instantiations, otherwise the
|> compiler crashes with an internal error.

I have found this as well. Often it crashes with an internal error only
after filling up the entire disk (which can take quite a while).

T.E.D.

Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)

[John Goodsen]

In article <34al0m$89d@felix.seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:

   The points that I, and other educators, have been making since Ada
   started in 1983 (actually before that) are

   (1) the vendors should seek funding based NOT on the DoD mandate, but 
       on Ada's viability for the world. That you once again cited the
       strength of the mandate as the _key_ concern tells me that, in
       fact, we were correct in our assumption that the vendors did not
       really believe in Ada, only in the potentially infinite DoD
       market they could cash in on. 

Show me one successful businessman who makes the investment to start a company
because they "believe" in something.  Hardly a wise business decision.  It
is completely legitimate for a company to enter a market with a plan to cash
in on their presence in the market.  Why do you and Greg continue to blast
companies for their decisions to follow a market rather than try to create
a market.  If someone came to you and said, "Mike, I need 2 million to start
this company who's goal is to build cool Ada things because we believe that
Ada is the best language to use, can you invest?"  If you had a couple mil in
your back pocket, can you honestly tell me that the wisest decision is to
try to push a market into existence by investing into it?  Markets develop
out of demand from consumers, not out of pushing by vendors who want to sell
products.  If I've got something to sell you but you don't want to buy it,
then am I the bad guy because you don't buy it?  I think not.

I'm getting kind of tired of hearing from people who have no
experience starting and running a business blast (directly or
indirectly) those who at least have the balls to give it a shot.

So we can hear you and Greg talk about who should get fired for
bad policy decisions within the DoD, but if any executive of a 
commercial company followed the advice you guys hand out so freely,
let me tell you, there'd be a lot of heads rolling because the
suggestions you and Greg make are not decisions that are typically
in the best interest of the shareholders in a company.  Your
suggestions of giving free handouts to universities and Greg's suggestions
that companies who make money in the Ada market are hypocrites when
they pursue business in other markets are equally ludicrous.
I for one would raise hell if I invested in a company and they decided
to ignore potentials for making money in non-Ada markets.  I'd like
to think you are not so crazy that you like your investors blowing
your money down a tube either.

It's the DoD that has killed Ada through failed policies and thereby
giving Ada a bad name to those who might think of using the language
in a non-DoD project.  Not small businesses.  Cut the liberal, "make
me feel good" business-bashing, crap and stay focused on the real
problem that Greg exposes daily.

       Turbo Pascal was just getting started at the same time; C++ started 
       even later. Somehow, Borland and its ilk (and I'm sure there were
       minicomputer software companies in the same category, but I can't
       recall now) managed to convince their backers of the viability of
       their stuff _without_ having to refer to a DoD Ada mandate. The
       playing field was, as I recall, pretty level then. 

Come on, Mike.  Pascal was taught to damn near every college student
back when Turbo Pascal came out.  No vendor intervention was required.
No one even heard what Ada was.  Not what I'd call a level playing field
by any stretch of the imagination.

       BUT the vendors - right from the start - acted as though their
       only competition was from other Ada vendors. In the DoD arena,
       that was (more-or-less) correct at the time, but any industry
       that is so fragile that its survival depends on the DoD bureaucracy
       is, in my outsider's opinion, built on a rather weak foundation.

   (2) an important part of the success of a new computing technology
       is its propagation through the universities. We tried to make
       this point over and over, starting in 1983 or earlier, but we
       were belittled as fuzzy-headed academics needing some business 
       school education. 

Well, it seems you don't always think in the pure economics of issues
which is where business is rooted.  You are right, though.  The Turbo
Pascal example has some merit, but you fail to analyze it properly.
Why did turbo pascal take off so fast?  Because college students were
learning it and using it on projects.  If you think that Borland created
the Pascal market, you are way off base.

Meanwhile, we have (or had) the same potential for Ada.  But because,
American universities have failed to promote Ada to the same level that
Pascal was promoted, it now becomes a small business failure because they
didn't give enough money and free software to people.  This argument reaks
of a liberal "can't take responsibility for my own actions" tone.  It's
not the goal of small business to promote the best technology.  It's the
goal of small business to capitalize on technology and make money on it.
Forcing Ada technology down everyone's throat isn't going to create the
market that we'd like to see.

       So instead of being brought into the picture as allies, we were
       called the "education _market_" and treated like second-class
       customers. We were offered what were called deep discounts,
       and some of us actually paid the "discounted" price, then found
       we were being gouged for alleged "support" we never used. We were
       asked to pay for the version that corrected the bugs we reported.

Borland has the same policy.  Sounds like good business to me, so maybe
it's not to far off to classify you and your peers as the "education market",
because I don't hear a lot of business sense coming out of your keyboard yet.

       Over and over I was told that vendors were just not interested
       in hooking the freshmen, because they would only be influential
       after 5 years. 

If Ada is so great, why to people have to be "hooked" through commercial business
support.  Again, I mention the history of Pascal.  That language
became a defacto standard teaching language because it was identified
and accepted as the norm.  Commercial businesses had little to do
with the incorporation of Pascal into so many CS programs.  How come
Ada can't experience the same defacto standardization unless businesses
fork out free software, support and pump money into promotional campaigns?
You have yet to make this connection between the 2 languages.

And don't get me wrong, of course it makes business sense for a vendor
to promote a market, but to put the blame on small businesses for the
failed Ada market is a much more myopic view of capitalism from a
college professor than I would expect to hear these days.

   We are now ten years into Ada's life, and (I guess) the vendors
   have finally awakened to their myopia of the past. I have heard 
   vendor folks on TA panels beating their breasts about their lack of
   a "market orientation" in the early days. Well, it's not like
   some folks weren't trying to turn their heads; I think they
   were simply too stubborn to listen, or too paralyzed by the
   ups and downs of the mandate to act on it.

   That C and C++ propagated like a virus through the universities while
   the Ada vendors'  backs were turned (or their heads were stuck in the
   sand, whatever), is just plain historical fact. If it is "vendor
   bashing" to set the record straight, so be it.

I suppose that it was the responsibility of Ada compiler vendors
to sniff out every student and make sure that they weren't bitten
by the C/C++ virus?  Meanwhile, instructors and students alike
remain ignorant of new languages like Ada.  Are you saying that the
last 10 years of failure to get Ada in as a defacto standard programming
language in CS curriculums is the fault of Ada vendors?  come on.


   Instead, the vendors essentially walked away from Ada, preferring, 
   apparently, to go for the larger C++ market, and advertising
   accordingly. So they did not really work at expanding the Ada
   market when C++ was not a strong competitor, and, having blown it
   the first time around, prefer to diversify into C++. This does NOT
   show the world a strong confidence in Ada; instead the message is
   "see, even its own suppliers jump off the train just because DoD
   blows a different-toned whistle."

Allow me to paraphrase this:

     "Ada vendors have failed expand the Ada market faster than the C++
      market has expanded, and now that they have "blown it", they
      are making the wise business decision to move into the C++ market
      as well."

2 response to this:

      A) It is a invalid premise that the reason for the a failed Ada market
         is due to vendors who are business savvy enough to know how to
         grow a market.  Remember, markets grow much faster and bigger when
         user's demand a product.  Where is the demand for Ada in this supply-side
         economy that we live in?  How come people are still graduating from
         college and haven't heard of the language?  I suppose it's the
         fault of Ada vendors for not giving out free software
         and support  (btw, I'm still waiting for that Borland free giveaway
         offer to students - ain't gonna happen)


       B) Hurray for the vendors that have enough business sense to carve out
          their place in the proven C++ market!  If they had my investment bucks
          and DIDN'T do this, *THEN* you might have something interesting to
          complain about.  Business is about making money, not creating markets
          based upon technological beliefs.

          And a followup on this note:  IMHO, the Ada9X project has failed
          miserably in pitting Ada against new OO languages, including C++.
          In particular, the introduction of yet another set of terms
          for a concept that is storming the industry (I'm talking about
          the decision to use "tagged types" in place of "class" and the
          lack of multiple inheritance).  I've reviewed the email/news/and lsn's
          and it still seems to me that Tucker et. al. on the Ada 9X team
          are sitting too high on their hobby horses to understand the most
          basic concepts about how to market Ada 9X into the OO community.
          Forcing people to discover that a tagged type is similar to a class,
          with a few noticable syntactic and structural caveats was a piss
          poor decision that smacks of the Ada arrogance that you and Greg so
          often dispell.  Add to this the decision to not provide direct
          support for multiple inheritance in the language and you have 2 BIG 
          reasons why Ada 9X isn't going to go far against C++.  Yeah, I've
          heard Tucker et. al. argue from a technical standpoint and it's
          an argument that either side can win, but I contend that the bottom
          line is that the Ada community (language designers, users, ...) at
          large is responsible for lack of any fast growing Ada markets.
          I've talked to 2 ex-Ada programmer's this week.  Both were aware of
          Ada 9X but neither was aware that it supported object oriented programming.
          I did a little experiment.  The first programmer, I told about tagged types.
          The terminology along (tagged types) caused him to go "huh?"  I had to
          draw on the board before he understood.  After the work required to 
          teach the first guy what Ada 9X had in store, I introduced tagged types
          to the second engineer under the guise of a "class type".  Guess what?
          I only had to explain that a "class type" in Ada was similar to a "class"
          in C++ except that the member functions are not stored as part of the object.
          Once he understood, I told him, "BTW, it's not called "class type", but rather
          "tagged typed" in Ada.  Just an example of why you don't present new
          terminology for old concepts to potential customers.  People don't want
          to have to learn what a "tagged type" is before they decide that Ada has
          what C++ has to offer...  

   What is it about this group of companies that puts them so often in
   a "we should have done X" mode? Can they get it right? Maybe they 
   should open their ears to a few more fuzzy-headed academics, even if
   we haven't got business degrees.

Sorry Mike, but again, if you ask many Ada vendors what they would have
done differently, they will tell you that the biggest mistake they made
was believing the government when they said that Ada would be mandated
across DoD projects and then never followed through, after millions of
dollars in private funds were spent by vendors in preparation to make
this market roll...  Very few Ada vendors that I know will say that 
the biggest mistake they made was *NOT* investing enough in the Ada 
market.  They invested.  A lot of them heavily.  Uncle Sam did the screwing.

   >The main problem faced by software developers today is no longer the language 
   >they use but the availability of tools, interfaces, and components.  In a way, 
   >the availability of quality interfaces and components is what makes 
   >development in C++  efficient in spite of the lower quality of the language. 

   Yes, of course. But these tools did not come out of the blue sky.
   A lot of them were built or at least prototyped in the universities,
   where -- guess what -- C++ was handed to them on a platter. I don't
   know where the funding for most of the GNU stuff came from, but
   I'll guess it was not mostly from Uncle Sam. And the GNU stuff -
   with source code available - is what made, and is making, so much
   of this development possible in the universities.

So what's your point on this?  I think you make mine nicely :-)
Don't tell me that C++ was handed on a platter to anyone from a
vendor.  Nearly every piece of netware I pull down was developed
with the gcc/g++ compilers.  Free compilers.  No vendor intervention
was required there.  So why is it so necessary for vendors to give
away their wares and tools to universities in order for Ada to succeed.
The answer is that it is not necessary.  It's just a nice sounding
panacea and if the vendors start giving aware more compilers and mentioning
Ada in their ads more, then they get to feel good about working on
the problem - regardless if it will amount to any level of success in
addressing the problem.

This is the same argument that people use to justify social welfare
programs.  "Those with money need to fund programs that the rest of
us believe in".  Government beauracracies might work this way.  Businesses
die this way.

   Yes, I know, GNAT will do the same for Ada 9X. But of course the
   vendors screamed bloody murder at the idea that they would have
   free-software competition. I think this group is still unable to
   see the big picture.

   >For Ada to be used, Ada vendors must find ways to supply these components and 
   >tools.  This means financing them and deriving enough revenue to be able to  
   >continue.  So if a vendor chooses to make such tools language-independent to 
   >amortize the costs on a larger  population  of customers, why not?

   I am not in the least opposed to this. I _am_ opposed to vendors
   not advertising that their stuff is multi-language. If indeed you
   see this as a strength, why not tell the world? It is very rare to
   see any of these things advertised as compastible with Ada _or_
   C++. Mostly it is only the C++ connection one sees. I find this
   exceedingly hard to explain to myself; the only answer I can come
   up with is that the vendors feel their Ada connection taints them,
   and so they want to be perceived as making a clean break.

I think you're right on with this one.  But, is it the vendor's fault
that Ada leaves a sour taste in peoples mouths?  Is it the vendor's
responsibility to bastardize an advertisement with sometime that will
leave that sour taste.  Vendors are in business to make money.  Period.
Injecting a sour taste into the reader of an advertisement is hardly
a wise use of the advertising dollar.  The deeper problem is "Why does Ada
leave the impression it does with people?"   I only point back to 

   If I am way off base on this, and there is a defensible reason why
   vendors from IDE to Intermetrics to DDC-I to Rational cannot use
   the A word in their ads along with C++, I'll be glad to be corrected,
   either publicly or privately.


I think you hit the nail on the head.  Why muff an ad that is focused
towards C++ developers by mentioning Ada and leave a bad taste in
their mouth?  If I were placing C++ product ads right now, I'd be
taking the same approach.
-- 
--
John Goodsen                         Currently on-site at:
The Dalmatian Group                       JP Morgan 
User Interface Specialists                60 Wall St., New York City
jgoodsen@radsoft.com                      jgoodsen@jpmorgan.com

Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)

[Ted Dennison]

In article <JGOODSEN.94Sep7184017@trinidad.radsoft.com>, jgoodsen@trinidad.radsoft.com (John Goodsen) writes:
|> In article <34al0m$89d@felix.seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:
|> 
|>    The points that I, and other educators, have been making since Ada
|>    started in 1983 (actually before that) are
|> 
|>    (1) the vendors should seek funding based NOT on the DoD mandate, but 
|>        on Ada's viability for the world. That you once again cited the
|>        strength of the mandate as the _key_ concern tells me that, in
|>        fact, we were correct in our assumption that the vendors did not
|>        really believe in Ada, only in the potentially infinite DoD
|>        market they could cash in on. 
|> 
|> Show me one successful businessman who makes the investment to start a company
|> because they "believe" in something.  Hardly a wise business decision.  It

Bill Gates. Jobbs and Wozniak, Sam Walton (dead, but he was successful)...

T.E.D.

Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)

[Michael Feldman]

In article <JGOODSEN.94Sep7184017@trinidad.radsoft.com>,
John Goodsen <jgoodsen@trinidad.radsoft.com> wrote:
>In article <34al0m$89d@felix.seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:

[this is an exceedingly long piece to respond to, so please excuse my
quoting only short snippets without writing [snip] each time. I am
cutting more than I'm leaving.]
>
>Show me one successful businessman who makes the investment to start a company
>because they "believe" in something.  Hardly a wise business decision.  

Hmmm. Are you _really_ saying that it is poor business practice to
actually believe that your product is good for something? 

>It
>is completely legitimate for a company to enter a market with a plan to cash
>in on their presence in the market.  Why do you and Greg continue to blast
>companies for their decisions to follow a market rather than try to create
>a market.  

Because almost every business sector I can think of, including the
software sector, has created its own market. The public is told it
needs product XYZ via advertising, and either the need is self-evident
or the public comes to agree with the need because it's been advertised to.

Sure, there are some cynical businesspeople who sell stuff they don;t 
believe in. But I am idealistic enough to think that most of them
have at least _some_ commitment to the worth of their product.

I daresay even the government is not immune. Do you think that every
DoD decision to purchase something was not influenced in some way by
its contractors? C'mon. You don't really believe that.

>If someone came to you and said, "Mike, I need 2 million to start
>this company who's goal is to build cool Ada things because we believe that
>Ada is the best language to use, can you invest?"  If you had a couple mil in
>your back pocket, can you honestly tell me that the wisest decision is to
>try to push a market into existence by investing into it?  Markets develop
>out of demand from consumers, not out of pushing by vendors who want to sell
>products.  If I've got something to sell you but you don't want to buy it,
>then am I the bad guy because you don't buy it?  I think not.

Gimme a break, John. American commerce is based on advertising and markets
advertising creates. Only government contractor types would pretend that
"the customer" simply dictates and industry magically produces.

>I'm getting kind of tired of hearing from people who have no
>experience starting and running a business blast (directly or
>indirectly) those who at least have the balls to give it a shot.

So kill the notes, John. It's a free country.

>Your
>suggestions of giving free handouts to universities and Greg's suggestions
>that companies who make money in the Ada market are hypocrites when
>they pursue business in other markets are equally ludicrous.

I'd like to know where you got the idea I was looking for free handouts
to universities. Did I ever say that?

There is "free beer" and "free speech", as Richard Stallman would put it.
As you pointed out so eloquently below, the free software in the C/C++
world has had a large positive effect there. As an academic, I am far
more interested in the "free speech" aspect - source code so researchers
can hack on it - than in the "free beer" aspect. 

One reason interest in Ada as a _research subject_ dried up is that no 
compilers and other tools were available to hack on. Obviously vendors 
should not be giving their sources to universities, but I am puzzled 
by the screams about GNAT, that show me clearly that the vendors simply 
don't understand how important the "free speech" aspect is.

Obviously they forget how Berkeley Unix, X, Mach, and Lord knows
how many other things, really got their push when Uncle Sam (ARPA,
in most cases) funded the development of software that was free
in both senses, but most importantly in the "free speech" sense.

My advice has been solicited - sometimes under nondisclosure, sometimes 
on a handshake - by a number of vendors recently. NEVER have I argued for 
"free beer." I am not asking - nor have I EVER asked - for handouts.
I've asked for license arrangements whereby vendor costs are recovered,
but we are not soaked as a profit stream, nor charged for support we
never use. In most cases my advice was taken. In some cases, vendors
decided on "free beer" software against my advice.

Indeed, I recall that you and I spoke at length about this very thing. 
('Course in your case, nothing ever came of it.)

>I for one would raise hell if I invested in a company and they decided
>to ignore potentials for making money in non-Ada markets.  I'd like
>to think you are not so crazy that you like your investors blowing
>your money down a tube either.

I think I said I am not opposed to diversification. I think you're being
rather incoherent, trying to blast me and Greg in the same note. Let's
try to sort out who's who, shall we?

>It's the DoD that has killed Ada through failed policies and thereby
>giving Ada a bad name to those who might think of using the language
>in a non-DoD project.  Not small businesses.  Cut the liberal, "make
>me feel good" business-bashing, crap and stay focused on the real
>problem that Greg exposes daily.

Ada is far too good an invention to be left to the DoD. That is EXACTLY
why we've been arguing for 10 years that the Ada market needs to be built
from the grass roots. You and the other "top-downers" have not been so
terribly successful doing it that way; why not at least listen to others
with alternative views?

>Come on, Mike.  Pascal was taught to damn near every college student
>back when Turbo Pascal came out.  No vendor intervention was required.
>No one even heard what Ada was.  Not what I'd call a level playing field
>by any stretch of the imagination.

You are half right. Pascal started with free software, and propagated
rather rapidly after Ken Bowles and his colleagues at UCSD developed
UCSD Pascal. And the original VAX Pascal compiler was developed by
a university group (University of Washington) which, as far as I know,
_still_ collects royalties from DEC on it. Now _there's_ a partnership.

Borland pushed Turbo Pascal _very hard_ to the educational "market".
Their per-copy student price was a fraction of their retail. And their
site licenses were attractively priced as well. Borland could not have 
been making money on it; it as a "loss leader" for them, I'm sure.
And Borland NEVER charged for bogus "support". If you wanted the
new version you could buy it.

Yes, Borland is in trouble now, but I doubt their mid-80's educational
licenses have anything to do with that.

>Well, it seems you don't always think in the pure economics of issues
>which is where business is rooted.  You are right, though.  The Turbo
>Pascal example has some merit, but you fail to analyze it properly.
>Why did turbo pascal take off so fast?  Because college students were
>learning it and using it on projects.  If you think that Borland created
>the Pascal market, you are way off base.

Not really. Turbo Pascal created a HUGE Turbo Pascal market. Have you
ever looked to see how many TP texts there still are? Go to an
education-oriented show like SIGCSE (help in the SIGAda booth, John)
and look at the texts. Borland managed to make TP _the_ standard
university compiler. It's waning now, but it was so for years.

>Meanwhile, we have (or had) the same potential for Ada.  But because,
>American universities have failed to promote Ada to the same level that
>Pascal was promoted, it now becomes a small business failure because they
>didn't give enough money and free software to people.  

You just don't get it. Borland _really did_ create that TP juggernaut
in the universities. I was there, man, and you were not. Borland did
not give their stuff away; they just saw the futility of trying to
gouge us; we have the choice to walk away from ripoffs, and we voted
with our feet.

>Forcing Ada technology down everyone's throat isn't going to create the
>market that we'd like to see.

You are so right, John, but ot in the sense that you meant it. DoD can
jump up and down and throw tantrums, but hasn't the power to enforce
its own mandate. Too many business people out there making independent
decisions. The only hope for Ada - if anyone cares - is bottom-up;
top-down is clearly not working.

>Borland has the same policy.  Sounds like good business to me, so maybe
>it's not to far off to classify you and your peers as the "education market",
>because I don't hear a lot of business sense coming out of your keyboard yet.

Borland's policy is "use this version or buy the next version." I have
no problem with that. I'm getting aded value. I am NOT getting added
value when an Ada company says "sure, we'll sell you our compiler,
as long as you keep paying that mandatory support fee." 

NOT! I refuse to pay for something I never use. The compiler vendors have 
finally come to understand that, as you will see if you trouble yourself
to look at their current academic policies.

>If Ada is so great, why to people have to be "hooked" through commercial business
>support.  Again, I mention the history of Pascal.  That language
>became a defacto standard teaching language because it was identified
>and accepted as the norm.  Commercial businesses had little to do
>with the incorporation of Pascal into so many CS programs.  How come
>Ada can't experience the same defacto standardization unless businesses
>fork out free software, support and pump money into promotional campaigns?

Actually, John, Ada is coming along quite well in the universities,
finally. C++ is increasingly seen as falling short of the Holy Grail.
No other part of the Ada market can show market share increasing as
rapidly as it has in the universities over 5 years. But I don't think
you're really interested in facts. If you are, we'll chat privately.

>You have yet to make this connection between the 2 languages.

See above.

>I suppose that it was the responsibility of Ada compiler vendors
>to sniff out every student and make sure that they weren't bitten
>by the C/C++ virus?  Meanwhile, instructors and students alike
>remain ignorant of new languages like Ada.  Are you saying that the
>last 10 years of failure to get Ada in as a defacto standard programming
>language in CS curriculums is the fault of Ada vendors?  come on.

I'm indeed saying that the vendors played a much more important role
in inhibiting Ada's catching fire than they understand or will ever admit.
(Publicly at least - privately, I hear enough support for my crazy ideas
to give me some hope.)

>Allow me to paraphrase this:
>
>     "Ada vendors have failed expand the Ada market faster than the C++
>      market has expanded, and now that they have "blown it", they
>      are making the wise business decision to move into the C++ market
>      as well."

Not bad. I'll go with it.

>          Business is about making money, not creating markets
>          based upon technological beliefs.

Half right. Business is indeed about creating markets. Ask Kellogg.

>   What is it about this group of companies that puts them so often in
>   a "we should have done X" mode? Can they get it right? Maybe they 
>   should open their ears to a few more fuzzy-headed academics, even if
>   we haven't got business degrees.
>
>Sorry Mike, but again, if you ask many Ada vendors what they would have
>done differently, they will tell you that the biggest mistake they made
>was believing the government when they said that Ada would be mandated
>across DoD projects and then never followed through, after millions of
>dollars in private funds were spent by vendors in preparation to make
>this market roll...  Very few Ada vendors that I know will say that 
>the biggest mistake they made was *NOT* investing enough in the Ada 
>market.  They invested.  A lot of them heavily.  Uncle Sam did the screwing.

We are in violent agreement here. Which brings us exactly full circle.
As opposed to most of U.S. industry, which invents products nobody knew
they needed, then sells them like hell (and this includes most of the
software industry as well), this group had no belief whatsoever in
the essential merits of their product. 

I am tempted to characterize this as the "beltway bandit" approach to 
business: Uncle Sam cooks up an idea, companies line up to sell that 
product to the government, though they don't believe in it enough to 
go out and create a non-government market at the same time. Then, when
government loses interest, or discovers that this product is not the
cure for all their problems, these companies scream bloody murder that
they were screwed. Sure they were screwed; they were stupid. 

I hate to say it, but we told them so, ten years ago. Nobody was listening.
I can recall giving a talk to the local SIGAda group in 1986 (!) that 
predicted exactly this outcome.

>So what's your point on this?  I think you make mine nicely :-)

It's nice we agree on something.

>Don't tell me that C++ was handed on a platter to anyone from a
>vendor.  Nearly every piece of netware I pull down was developed
>with the gcc/g++ compilers.  Free compilers.  No vendor intervention
>was required there.  

C++ started with AT&T. Hardly a charitable organization. Indeed, they
gave it away (err, licensed it for $200.) to universities. I know;
I filled out our first license agreement for it. Just like I filled out
our first agreements for AT&T Unix and Berkeley Unix. Who do you suppose
funded Berkeley? Uncle Sam. ARPA.

Who do you think is funding FSF to develop all that stuff? The Red Cross? 
Do you seriously think it's _all_ volunteers? I'd be willing to bet that 
you'd find good ol' American industry on their list of sponsors.

And I predict that similar things will happen with GNAT.

>So why is it so necessary for vendors to give
>away their wares and tools to universities in order for Ada to succeed.
>The answer is that it is not necessary.  It's just a nice sounding
>panacea and if the vendors start giving aware more compilers and mentioning
>Ada in their ads more, then they get to feel good about working on
>the problem - regardless if it will amount to any level of success in
>addressing the problem.

Well, you are lumping together the red herring of giveaways - which I 
never asked for - and advertising, which I damn well did ask for.
You're making a mistake lumping me with Greg, too. We may both
be irritating you, but we are not the same.

>This is the same argument that people use to justify social welfare
>programs.  "Those with money need to fund programs that the rest of
>us believe in".  Government beauracracies might work this way.  Businesses
>die this way.

Sheesh - why not go on a long political tirade, John?

>I think you're right on with this one.  But, is it the vendor's fault
>that Ada leaves a sour taste in peoples mouths?  Is it the vendor's
>responsibility to bastardize an advertisement with sometime that will
>leave that sour taste.  Vendors are in business to make money.  Period.
>Injecting a sour taste into the reader of an advertisement is hardly
>a wise use of the advertising dollar.  The deeper problem is "Why does Ada
>leave the impression it does with people?"   

As I said many times, I would be happy to see some REAL evidence that
Ada has tainted a company in this way. You can post it here, or you
can e-mail me, and I'll shut up. Till then, I persist in believing
that it's a myth, arising mostly from vendors' low _self_image_.
I think they realize that most of the Ada stuff out there sucks
compared to the competition. They are not mentioning Ada in their
ads because they can't deliver. 

Anyone want to counter this? I have no facts either way, and have
clearly labeled this as a _belief_, an _opinion_. I would be delighted
to have my opinion changed, but tirades about liberalism won't get
you to first base with me.

>I think you hit the nail on the head.  Why muff an ad that is focused
>towards C++ developers by mentioning Ada and leave a bad taste in
>their mouth?  If I were placing C++ product ads right now, I'd be
>taking the same approach.

Let's see some hard evidence on this, John.

Mike Feldman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman -  chair, SIGAda Education Working Group
Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The George Washington University -  Washington, DC 20052 USA
202-994-5253 (voice) - 202-994-0227 (fax) - mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)
"Pork is all that stuff the government gives the other guys."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)

[Michael Feldman]

In article <34n5dn$3c8@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>,
Ted Dennison <dennison@romulus23.DAB.GE.COM> wrote:
>|> 
>|> Show me one successful businessman who makes the investment to start a company
>|> because they "believe" in something.  Hardly a wise business decision.  It
>
>Bill Gates. Jobbs and Wozniak, Sam Walton (dead, but he was successful)...
>
Thanks for the help on this, Ted. Clearly you and I have very differet views
of American business than John. Truth to tell, I'd _never_ buy a product 
from a guy like John. How good can it be if its own creator doesn't
believe in it (or at least pretend he does)?

This "we only do what the customer wants" is typical of government
contractors, but not of successful business in general, which is smart 
enough to get off its duff and create customers.

Mike Feldman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman -  chair, SIGAda Education Working Group
Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The George Washington University -  Washington, DC 20052 USA
202-994-5253 (voice) - 202-994-0227 (fax) - mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)
"Pork is all that stuff the government gives the other guys."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)

[Robert Firth]

In article <34nc8t$olr@felix.seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:

>This "we only do what the customer wants" is typical of government
>contractors, but not of successful business in general, which is smart 
>enough to get off its duff and create customers.

Exactly.  There was hardly a vast unsatisfied need for pet rocks,
hula hoops, and shoes that glow in the dark.  The product was
created first, then the market.  That's how it works in any
mature industrial society, where 90% of new products do not
address basic needs.

Mow about an Ada compiler that glows in the dark and comes with
a free pet rock?

Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)

[Scott McCoy]

In article <1994Sep8.152621.11023@sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
|>
|> How about an Ada compiler that glows in the dark and comes with a
|> free pet rock?
|>

Already got one.  An R-1000 Rational system.  

(Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-)
-- 
Scott McCoy     Opinions expressed are my own.
 
There are few wild beasts more to be dreaded than a communicative man
having nothing to communicate.
                                -- Christian Nestell Bovee

Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)

[Kevin D. Heatwole]

Michael Feldman (mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu ) writes:
> And Borland NEVER charged for bogus "support". If you wanted the
> new version you could buy it.

Actually, I believe that vendor pricing has more to do with the kind of
computer that the software will run on than anything else.  

For PCs, software vendors typically charge a one-time fee for the product.
You have to pay again for any upgrades.  The upgrade fee is usually cheaper
than buying the product again (but not always).

For Workstations, software vendors typically charge a one-time fee for
the product, maybe a required one-year maintenance/upgrade fee, and then 
optional yearly maintenance fees.  The yearly maintenance fee is generally 
10-15% of the "undiscounted" purchase price if it includes maintenance
only (e.g., phone support, bug fixing, etc.).  If the fee includes free
upgrades, then the fee is usually around 20%.  Ada compilers are usually
a "high" maintenance item.

For Mainframes, often software vendors will change nothing up front (maybe
just media costs) and license the software for a Monthly License Charge
(MLC).  This is almost like software "renting".

There are, of course, many different pricing schemes out there, but the
bottom line is that a software vendor must recoup his costs and make a
profit.  In fact, the trend with all the networking going on, is to
price software by its use (either by the number of concurrent users allowed
or by number of times actually used).

Regardless, I think you might be a little rough on the Ada compiler vendors
whose pricing policy is one-time charge with an annual maintenance fee.
This pricing model is used by many software vendors (at OC Systems, we
pay annual maintenance fees on just about all the commercial software
we have purchased for our workstations).

> Borland's policy is "use this version or buy the next version." I have
> no problem with that. I'm getting aded value. I am NOT getting added
> value when an Ada company says "sure, we'll sell you our compiler,
> as long as you keep paying that mandatory support fee." 

Borland is pricing software for the massive PC market.   Also, Borland's
compilers were much easier to implement than Ada compilers.  I even implemented
a Pascal compiler when I attended school in the early 80's.  Even GNAT
has taken several millions of dollars and several years to implement, and
it still has a way to go yet.  So don't expect Borland's pricing to
be the same as a commercial Ada compiler vendor just because they both
sell compilers.

> 
> NOT! I refuse to pay for something I never use. The compiler vendors have 
> finally come to understand that, as you will see if you trouble yourself
> to look at their current academic policies.

Anyway it is priced, the Ada compiler vendor must make a profit or get out of
the Ada business.  This isn't unique to Ada compiler vendors.

As for "academic" pricing, as far as I can tell, there isn't enough of
a market for Ada compilers from academic organizations that are willing 
to pay, to make it worthwhile for most Ada compiler vendors (excluding
the Ada compiler vendors that have targeted the PC marketplace with PC-like
pricing models - they may still have a chance to make a profit).  
Therefore, most vendors seem to have figure now that they might as well 
give it away (with minimal support) because this really doesn't cost them 
much.  Besides, the more users using your compiler, the more solid the compiler 
will become in the long run.  This wasn't true several years back, because
most vendors probably felt they could make a profit "selling" into the
academic market. 

Another minor point that might be hindering many Ada vendors from pricing
software cheaper is that the US government continues to be one of the
major sources of income for Ada vendors.  Often, the government will 
require a vendor to give the government "most favorite customer" pricing
(especially, if you are listed on the GSA schedule).  I think this means
that the vendor can't sell the product cheaper to customers outside
the government.  

Well, these are only my opinions and observations, but sometimes people 
on this board sometimes "bash" Ada vendors who are only trying to make
a profit and compete in a relatively small market.  

Kevin D. Heatwole
OC Systems, Inc.

Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)

[David Weller]

In article <Cvtz04.H81@jabba.ess.harris.com>,
Scott McCoy <smccoy@dr3w.ess.harris.com> wrote:
>
>In article <1994Sep8.152621.11023@sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>|>
>|> How about an Ada compiler that glows in the dark and comes with a
>|> free pet rock?
>|>
>
>Already got one.  An R-1000 Rational system.  
>
>(Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-)

In my spare time (HA!), I've considered writing a book called "1001
Things to do with an Old R-1000".
I've already got:
	Doorstop (for Castles and Mansions)
	Doghouse
	Convert to a washer and dryer
	Put an Apple sticker on it and call it the Quadra 400000 :-)
	Paint it black and call it the "NeXT Mainframe"
	Boat Anchor
	Spare bedroom for the mother-in-law (my favorite! :-)
	Cut a window in it and tell the kids it's a new big screen TV
	Paint green and sell to military as porta-potties
	Put wheels on it and run it in the next soapbox derby

Do you want me to go on? :-)


-- 
Proud (and vocal) member of Team Ada! (and Team OS/2)        ||This is not your
             Ada 9X -- It doesn't suck                       ||  father's Ada
For all sorts of interesting Ada 9X tidbits, run the command:||________________
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)

Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)

[Michael Feldman]

In article <1994Sep8.152621.11023@sei.cmu.edu>,
Robert Firth <firth@sei.cmu.edu> wrote:
>In article <34nc8t$olr@felix.seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:

>>This "we only do what the customer wants" is typical of government
>>contractors, but not of successful business in general, which is smart 
>>enough to get off its duff and create customers.

>Exactly.  There was hardly a vast unsatisfied need for pet rocks,
>hula hoops, and shoes that glow in the dark.  The product was
>created first, then the market.  That's how it works in any
>mature industrial society, where 90% of new products do not
>address basic needs.

Thanks for the support, Robert! I guess I'm not the only crazy one..:-)

>Mow about an Ada compiler that glows in the dark and comes with
>a free pet rock?

...only if it's free to universities. :-) :-) :-)

Mike Feldman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman -  chair, SIGAda Education Working Group
Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The George Washington University -  Washington, DC 20052 USA
202-994-5253 (voice) - 202-994-0227 (fax) - mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)
"Pork is all that stuff the government gives the other guys."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)

[CONDIC]

From: Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
Subject: Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)
Original_To:  PROFS%"SMTP@PWAGPDB"
Original_cc:  CONDIC



On  Thu, 8 Sep 1994 11:52:53, Michael Feldman <mfeldman@SEAS.GWU.EDU> wrote:
>
>You just don't get it. Borland _really did_ create that TP juggernaut
>in the universities. I was there, man, and you were not. Borland did
>not give their stuff away; they just saw the futility of trying to
>gouge us; we have the choice to walk away from ripoffs, and we voted
>with our feet.
>
I was there too. As I recall (correct me if I'm wrong) Turbo
Pascal was introduced by Borland at a cost of $29.95 when every
other company on the planet was selling compilers for $500 and
up. The price quickly jumped to $39.95, but was *still* way below
the competition. (I think this was around 1978, but being in the
"springtime of my senility" I'm not sure of the exact time.
Anyway, you can translate this into 1994 dollars.)

If you wanted to buy a programming language (*any* language!)
just to be able to program your machine in something other than
interpreted Basic, at the time, Borland was the very best deal
you could get.

Turbo Pascal was enormously successful because the average
student or hobbyist or interested professional programmer could
run out and buy a copy with spare change, rather than a mortgage
loan. They could play around with it to see if they liked the language
enough to do anything real with it. It didn't matter if the
compiler was entirely bug free or highly efficient - they had a
real programming language they could experiment with for very
little money.

Now if we could find a way to get a full implementation of Ada 9x
out into as many hands as Turbo Pascal ended up in, don't you
think this would start generating a strong commercial market for
Ada products? If it was possible to buy an Ada 9x compiler that
a) did not core dump, b) did not take a rocket scientist to
install or invoke, c) implemented the whole language at a
reasonable level of efficiency and reliability, d) came with
training materials significantly easier to use than an LRM
(emphasizing a Pascal-like subset, just to get folks started) and
e) cost under $200 for the "basic kit", you'd have something
marketable. From there, you sell the add-ons and support for more
$$$ to the guys who want a full-up development environment.

Of course, this was tried by R&R Software years ago and it didn't
quite work. My problem with their $99 compiler was that it
implemented a "non-standard" subset of the language (which kept
you from developing stuff that would be portable - even for
future releases of the compiler and also didn't give you the more
"interesting" features of the language, like generics.) and they
were extremely slow with any upgrades leading to a full
implementation. It was cheap, and wasn't too terribly painful to
install or invoke, and it even more or less generated some
reasonable code - good enough for experiments. But it remaind
"Pascal with nicer syntax" and I don't think enough effort was
put into selling it to the general populace. (I saw adds in
specialized journals, but never saw anything in Byte, nor was it
on the shelf at the local software store.)

Ada *could* go out in the marketplace and successfully compete
because it is an inherently good product. I think it's got some
bad press to overcome, but with a "try it - you'll like it"
approach, I think it can attract interest from even the most
die-hard C/C++ programmers.

The problem is one of price and availability. What's the cheapest
price you know of for a full Ada 83 compiler that works at some
comparable level of performance to most C/C++ compilers for an
IBM-PClone or Mac? What's the difference in price between this
Ada compiler and what you would pay for a C/C++ compiler? Can you
go to the local CompUSA and find it in a shrink-wrap box and take
it home with you?

Answer these questions and it will become immediately obvious to
even the most casual observer why there are more C/C++
programmers out there than there are Ada programmers.

Pax Vobiscum,

Marin


Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer    ATT:        407.796.8997
M/S 731-93                                      Technet:    796.8997
Pratt & Whitney, GESP                           Internet:   CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
P.O. Box 109600                                 Internet:   MDCONDIC@AOL.COM
West Palm Beach, FL 33410-9600                  Internet:   4033121@MCIMAIL.COM
===============================================================================
    "According to my best recollection, I don't remember."

        --  Vincent "Jimmy Blue Eyes" Alo
===============================================================================

Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)

[John M. Mills]

In article <INFO-ADA%94090909593299@VM1.NODAK.EDU>,
 <CONDIC@PSAVAX.PWFL.COM> wrote:
>From: Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
>Subject: Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)
 [...]
>On  Thu, 8 Sep 1994 11:52:53, Michael Feldman <mfeldman@SEAS.GWU.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>You just don't get it. Borland _really did_ create that TP juggernaut
>>in the universities. I was there, man, and you were not. Borland did
>>not give their stuff away; they just saw the futility of trying to
>>gouge us; we have the choice to walk away from ripoffs, and we voted
>>with our feet.

>I was there too. As I recall (correct me if I'm wrong) Turbo
>Pascal was introduced by Borland at a cost of $29.95 when every
>other company on the planet was selling compilers for $500 and
>up. The price quickly jumped to $39.95, but was *still* way below
>the competition.

Not quite my recollection (but my memory is always debatable).  I bought
JRT Pascal for cp/m when the price was dropped from c.$500 to $29.95.  The
package was a _dog_ however, and the price drop did two things:
  (1) exposed lots of users to the fragile compiler and doubtful math
      library, and
  (2) generated a demand for user support which then bankrupted the company.

Then went up, then down like a skyrocket. Chapter 11.  The package is now
public domain.  (In fairness, it had some good features, like automatic
loading and purging of modules when memory space was needed.)

Borland's product was not as high as $500 (I don't remember the price.),
but they then dropped to $99, I think, which is what I paid for v.3.0
for cp/m.  The IDE was a great step forward by the day's standards, and
Borland encouraged developers with their simple license agreements,
particularly _no_royalties_ on code compiled with their compiler.  I had
MS-DOS and cp/m versions 3.0, and was happy to have both.  When v.4.0
came out (MS-DOS only, I think), they also brought out a set of "toolboxes"
with complete source code and thorough manuals.  These were great for
inexperienced folks like me.  (There were some 3.0 toolboxes, too.)

This all looks primitive today, but it was a real improvement at the time,
and Borland was easy to deal with.  That was _well_before_ the deep-discount
and free site-license distributions of today.

Anyway, maybe someone can correct my memories.  They're probably lots better
than the "real thing" ever was.

>Ada *could* go out in the marketplace and successfully compete
>because it is an inherently good product. I think it's got some
>bad press to overcome, but with a "try it - you'll like it"
>approach, I think it can attract interest from even the most
>die-hard C/C++ programmers.

I think C benefitted from the "real pro" image associated with its
early users.  GNAT has the possibility of attracting some of the "roll
your own" crowd to Ada, and Ada may benefit from that visibility.  Personally,
I _like_ the GCC "build your own" approach.  Once I had bootstrapped GCC,
I had confidence the @#$!! could work.  (Maybe the "if it tastes bad, it's good
for you" effect in action.)  I might try a pre-built GNAT binary, but I would
rather build it in our own directory structure before turning it loose on the
home team.  (Obviously, I haven't done so yet, and don't know if the process
resembles building GCC and friends.)

Regards --jmm--

-- 
John M. Mills, SRE -- john.m.mills@gtri.gatech.edu -- (404)528-3258 (voice)
   Georgia Tech/ GTRI/ SDL, 7220 Richardson Rd., Smyrna, GA 30080
   "Well, I'm an Assistant Regurgitation Engineer --
     but I should make Senior R.E. next year" _The_Far_Side_, G. Larson

Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)

[Michael Feldman]

In article <1994Sep8.225002.12999@ocsystems.com>,
Kevin D. Heatwole <kdh@ocsystems.com> wrote:

>For Workstations, software vendors typically charge a one-time fee for
>the product, maybe a required one-year maintenance/upgrade fee, and then 
>optional yearly maintenance fees.  The yearly maintenance fee is generally 
>10-15% of the "undiscounted" purchase price if it includes maintenance
>only (e.g., phone support, bug fixing, etc.).  If the fee includes free
>upgrades, then the fee is usually around 20%.  Ada compilers are usually
>a "high" maintenance item.

Yes, I understand this, and for teams working on deadline-driven projects,
it makes sense for them to pay for, and have access to, good support.
See below.

>Regardless, I think you might be a little rough on the Ada compiler vendors
>whose pricing policy is one-time charge with an annual maintenance fee.
>This pricing model is used by many software vendors (at OC Systems, we
>pay annual maintenance fees on just about all the commercial software
>we have purchased for our workstations).

Remember, I was talking abut academic pricing. See below.

>Borland is pricing software for the massive PC market.   Also, Borland's
>compilers were much easier to implement than Ada compilers.  I even implemented
>a Pascal compiler when I attended school in the early 80's.  Even GNAT
>has taken several millions of dollars and several years to implement, and
>it still has a way to go yet.  So don't expect Borland's pricing to
>be the same as a commercial Ada compiler vendor just because they both
>sell compilers.

Many Ada vendors have told me they were pricing for margin, not volume.
These companies (the ones with the Ada/PC compilers) convinced themselves
that Ada would always be a low-volume thing, and thereby guaranteed
that Ada would be a low-volume thing. I don't think anyone seriously
tested the elasticity; look how hard it is even to find out that
one of those compilers _exists_. When it comes to publicizing their
PC products outside the Ada community, they keep secrets better
than the CIA (well, that's no criterion these days...:-))

>As for "academic" pricing, as far as I can tell, there isn't enough of
>a market for Ada compilers from academic organizations that are willing 
>to pay, to make it worthwhile for most Ada compiler vendors (excluding
>the Ada compiler vendors that have targeted the PC marketplace with PC-like
>pricing models - they may still have a chance to make a profit).  

My argument has been that universities should not be seen as contributing
to profit, but rather to long-term growth, by making sure that all those
students demand Ada on the job. I am not asking - have NEVER asked -
that companies lose money on us, only that they not _make_ money on us.
I don't know why I have to keep saying this.

>Therefore, most vendors seem to have figure now that they might as well 
>give it away (with minimal support) because this really doesn't cost them 
>much.  Besides, the more users using your compiler, the more solid the 
>compiler will become in the long run.  

I'm glad the point has finally sunk in; we've tried to make it
for ten years.

>This wasn't true several years back, because
>most vendors probably felt they could make a profit "selling" into the
>academic market. 

That was their big mistake. We told them, but it took 10 years (almost)
to sink in. The universities voted with their feet.

I have NO problem with "distribution fees" of - say - a few hundred
bucks - to cover the vendor's avoidable costs of a compiler copy.
I know no educators who'd object to this. You imply that "minimal
support" is a new idea - it is _exactly_ what we asked for all
along. Compilers in a teaching situation do NOT require vendor
support, once the thing is stably installed. Ask any of us how
often we call our vendors. This is - always has been - a red herring.
>
>Another minor point that might be hindering many Ada vendors from pricing
>software cheaper is that the US government continues to be one of the
>major sources of income for Ada vendors.  Often, the government will 
>require a vendor to give the government "most favorite customer" pricing
>(especially, if you are listed on the GSA schedule).  I think this means
>that the vendor can't sell the product cheaper to customers outside
>the government.  

I understand this. It still goes to the high-margin/low-volume
argument. Why should the government be more willing to be gouged
than anyone else? What's the fight over the mandate about? There
are many _inside_ the government who are voting (or trying to vote)
with their feet.

>Well, these are only my opinions and observations, but sometimes people 
>on this board sometimes "bash" Ada vendors who are only trying to make
>a profit and compete in a relatively small market.  

I realize it's all water under the bridge, but after ten years the
market should not still be "relatively small". Call it "bashing", if
you will, but I've had enough discussions with vendor principals
over the last ten years to be pretty confident in my statement
that the vendors created a self-fulfilling prophecy that is now 
biting them good and proper, now that DoD is downsizing (and seemingly
unable to _really_ enforce a mandate).

It's not like there weren't folks out here trying to help them see 
that they were really stifling Ada's growth. That they're seeing it 
now tells me that, even if we are fuzzy-headed academics, we were not 
so far off the mark. I've certainly been told privately that we
were pretty close to right.

Mike Feldman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman -  chair, SIGAda Education Working Group
Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The George Washington University -  Washington, DC 20052 USA
202-994-5253 (voice) - 202-994-0227 (fax) - mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)
"Pork is all that stuff the government gives the other guys."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)

[john r strohm]

In article <INFO-ADA%94090909593299@VM1.NODAK.EDU> CONDIC@PSAVAX.PWFL.COM writes:
>From: Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
>Subject: Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)
>Original_To:  PROFS%"SMTP@PWAGPDB"
>Original_cc:  CONDIC
>
>
>
>On  Thu, 8 Sep 1994 11:52:53, Michael Feldman <mfeldman@SEAS.GWU.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>You just don't get it. Borland _really did_ create that TP juggernaut
>>in the universities. I was there, man, and you were not. Borland did
>>not give their stuff away; they just saw the futility of trying to
>>gouge us; we have the choice to walk away from ripoffs, and we voted
>>with our feet.
>>
>I was there too. As I recall (correct me if I'm wrong) Turbo
>Pascal was introduced by Borland at a cost of $29.95 when every
>other company on the planet was selling compilers for $500 and
>up. The price quickly jumped to $39.95, but was *still* way below
>the competition. (I think this was around 1978, but being in the
>"springtime of my senility" I'm not sure of the exact time.
>Anyway, you can translate this into 1994 dollars.)

Not even close.

James R. Tyson offered JRT Pascal for $29.95 for CP/M in the 1982/83
timeframe.  His company literally drowned under the response, and a lot
of people lost their money.  The product was real, and it worked: a friend
of mine managed to get a copy before they folded.

Borland started around this time, offering Turbo Pascal for $49.95.  They
were initially VERY concerned that they would be seen as being another
ripoff attempt, on the heels of JRT.  However, their product was also
real, but they were prepared to swim frantically and cope with heavy
response.  They succeeded.

I bought Turbo Pascal 2.0 for CP/M in 1984 or thereabouts; I remember a VERY
late-night debugging session as I chased a problem through their code and
into my CPM CBIOS.  (The problem was in the BIOS; this was in the days when
vendors actually gave you source code for critical things.)

Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)

[Christopher Henrich]

Robert Firth <firth@sei.cmu.edu> writes:
 
>Mow about an Ada compiler that glows in the dark and comes with
 
                                                       ^^^^^
 
>a free pet rock?
 
Shouldn't this discussion be moved to alt.sex.lithophilia?
 
Frivolously yours,
Chris Henrich

Re: fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational(long)

[ISAAC PENTINMAKI]

>to:    CONDIC@PSAVAX.PWFL.COM
>To:    IN%"INFO-ADA@VM1.NoDak.EDU"  "Recipients of INFO-ADA digests"
>Subject: Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)

C>Of course, this was tried by R&R Software years ago and it didn't ...
C>put into selling it to the general populace. (I saw adds in
C>specialized journals, but never saw anything in Byte, nor was it
C>on the shelf at the local software store.)

General ?
Like most compiler companies the effort was directed at programers
(unlike other Ada companies we advertised to the commercial
market from the start, it tooks us about 4 months to find out that
Telesoft even had a competing product back in Aug 1981)
The ads were placed in the original DDJ which competed mostly with 'C'
and Borland Pascal ads (this is before Microsoft existed), we also tried
the more general publications of Infoworld and Byte (look for 1/4 page ads).
Later ads appeared in  Microsystems Journal, Pc World and I think a
couple other magazines that  Ziff-Davis bought and then murdered.

At that time (<1983) the 1/4 page ad cost about $ 500/ad with 3 time
insertion, which is about all that we could budget at that time.
The same ad today costs several thousand dollars and tends be totally
lost in the magazine.

Also it has been my experiance that software stores like most
commercial enterprises do not stock software unless they have
experianced multiple requests for the software (some mail order
chains are the same way) due to the overhead of shipping, keeping stock
and low margins on software costing less than $ 500.00.  For example
the last quote I had for a dealer cost on Windows 3.0 was $ 85.00 but
I could buy it retail for less than $99.00. After shipping costs
you might gross $ 9 on a sale which is not worth while unless you
are talking large quantities or bundling.

MF>Many Ada vendors have told me they were pricing for margin, not volume.
MF>These companies (the ones with the Ada/PC compilers) convinced themselves
MF>that Ada would always be a low-volume thing, and thereby guaranteed
MF>that Ada would be a low-volume thing. I don't think anyone seriously
MF>tested the elasticity; look how hard it is even to find out that

Yeah right, 5 years of marketing our prevalidated Ada compiler at various
prices from $ 99 to $ 1000 from 1981..1986 proved nothing.  But then
we never had the marketing/investor money of Telsoft,Alsys or Rational to
take more than 1 year at a time playing with the prices.  Since About
1989 the prices have been more stable in the $500-1000 range for
most of the products and introductory packages at around $ 100.

Isaac

These views are my own and do not represent the views of my ex-employer.

Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)

[John Goodsen]

In article <34nc0l$obm@felix.seas.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:

   >
   >Show me one successful businessman who makes the investment to start a company
   >because they "believe" in something.  Hardly a wise business decision.  

   Hmmm. Are you _really_ saying that it is poor business practice to
   actually believe that your product is good for something? 

I think you chose to miss my point here.  I'm hardly saying that vendors are in err
if they believe in their product, but there is more than just believing
in the product that business decisions are made upon.  In particular,
market research that shows an estimated return on investment are typically
required before a company pumps money into building a market.
If a business decides choose a particular path because there is more
money in that path (e.g. C++ instead of Ada), you can't go ramrod that company
as acting irresponsible and hack at them for not pumping more and more
money into a market that is relatively shrinking when compared to other
markets.  In particular, I would say that the company is acting responsibly
on the behalf of those who have invested in the company.

   >It is completely legitimate for a company to enter a market with a plan to cash
   >in on their presence in the market.  Why do you and Greg continue to blast
   >companies for their decisions to follow a market rather than try to create
   >a market.  

   Because almost every business sector I can think of, including the
   software sector, has created its own market. The public is told it
   needs product XYZ via advertising, and either the need is self-evident
   or the public comes to agree with the need because it's been advertised to.

   Sure, there are some cynical businesspeople who sell stuff they don;t 
   believe in. But I am idealistic enough to think that most of them
   have at least _some_ commitment to the worth of their product.

   I daresay even the government is not immune. Do you think that every
   DoD decision to purchase something was not influenced in some way by
   its contractors? C'mon. You don't really believe that.

Or influenced in some way *NOT* to purchase something, in the case of Ada
compilers  :-)

   >If someone came to you and said, "Mike, I need 2 million to start
   >this company who's goal is to build cool Ada things because we believe that
   >Ada is the best language to use, can you invest?"  If you had a couple mil in
   >your back pocket, can you honestly tell me that the wisest decision is to
   >try to push a market into existence by investing into it?  Markets develop
   >out of demand from consumers, not out of pushing by vendors who want to sell
   >products.  If I've got something to sell you but you don't want to buy it,
   >then am I the bad guy because you don't buy it?  I think not.

   Gimme a break, John. American commerce is based on advertising and markets
   advertising creates. Only government contractor types would pretend that
   "the customer" simply dictates and industry magically produces.

The point being that if you went to the board of a company and presented
a project to fund, but the only defense of that product was something 
along the lines of "Ada is the best technology and it is up to us to 
create an Ada market to do business in", you'd be laughed out of the 
meeting before the first slide.  

   >I'm getting kind of tired of hearing from people who have no
   >experience starting and running a business blast (directly or
   >indirectly) those who at least have the balls to give it a shot.

   So kill the notes, John. It's a free country.

or expose the err in your logic - that's more interesting than pretending
that you don't exist :-)

   >Your
   >suggestions of giving free handouts to universities and Greg's suggestions
   >that companies who make money in the Ada market are hypocrites when
   >they pursue business in other markets are equally ludicrous.

   I'd like to know where you got the idea I was looking for free handouts
   to universities. Did I ever say that?

Yes, abosolutely!  You say this in nearly every post I read.
I'm wondering why you don't just make it part of you .signature :-)

Here's a snippet you just wrote a couple of articles ago....

  --
   >Mow about an Ada compiler that glows in the dark and comes with
   >a free pet rock?

   ...only if it's free to universities. :-) :-) :-)
  --
-- 
--
John Goodsen                         Currently on-site at:
The Dalmatian Group                       JP Morgan 
User Interface Specialists                60 Wall St., New York City
jgoodsen@radsoft.com                      jgoodsen@jpmorgan.com

Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)

[Michael Feldman]

In article <JGOODSEN.94Sep16155040@trinidad.jpmorgan.com>,
John Goodsen <jgoodsen@trinidad.jpmorgan.com> wrote:

>   Hmmm. Are you _really_ saying that it is poor business practice to
>   actually believe that your product is good for something? 
>
>I think you chose to miss my point here.  I'm hardly saying that vendors are in err
>if they believe in their product, but there is more than just believing
>in the product that business decisions are made upon.  In particular,
>market research that shows an estimated return on investment are typically
>required before a company pumps money into building a market.

I'll ignore your gratuitous slam "chose to miss my point".

So are you saying that market research in the 80's showed no market
potential for Ada outside the government?

>If a business decides choose a particular path because there is more
>money in that path (e.g. C++ instead of Ada), you can't go ramrod that company
>as acting irresponsible and hack at them for not pumping more and more
>money into a market that is relatively shrinking when compared to other
>markets.  

You are confusing me with someone else. I never ramrodded companies for
diversifying into C++, only for hiding the fact that they also had Ada
products. I really don't cotton to being so badly misquoted.

>In particular, I would say that the company is acting responsibly
>on the behalf of those who have invested in the company.

>   I daresay even the government is not immune. Do you think that every
>   DoD decision to purchase something was not influenced in some way by
>   its contractors? C'mon. You don't really believe that.

>Or influenced in some way *NOT* to purchase something, in the case of Ada
>compilers  :-)

This one's too subtle for me. Can you explain?

>   Gimme a break, John. American commerce is based on advertising and markets
>   advertising creates. Only government contractor types would pretend that
>   "the customer" simply dictates and industry magically produces.

>The point being that if you went to the board of a company and presented
>a project to fund, but the only defense of that product was something 
>along the lines of "Ada is the best technology and it is up to us to 
>create an Ada market to do business in", you'd be laughed out of the 
>meeting before the first slide.  

And how do you know? Did you try it? The entire history of the computer
industry is filled with examples of new technologies for which markets
were created.

>   I'd like to know where you got the idea I was looking for free handouts
>   to universities. Did I ever say that?
>
>Yes, abosolutely!  You say this in nearly every post I read.

Hogwash.

>I'm wondering why you don't just make it part of you .signature :-)
>
>Here's a snippet you just wrote a couple of articles ago....

>   >Mow about an Ada compiler that glows in the dark and comes with
>   >a free pet rock?

>   ...only if it's free to universities. :-) :-) :-)

Obviously you missed the three smileys. I was poking fun at guys like
you who persist in misunderstanding and misquoting. If you are going
to caricature me, I might as well play along.

That's amazing, folks! He thought I _meant_ it. :-)

Mike Feldman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman -  chair, SIGAda Education Working Group
Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The George Washington University -  Washington, DC 20052 USA
202-994-5919 (voice) - 202-994-0227 (fax) - mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)
NOTE NEW PHONE NUMBER.
"Pork is all that stuff the government gives the other guys."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)

[Rod Cheshire]

mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:

>In article <JGOODSEN.94Sep16155040@trinidad.jpmorgan.com>,
>John Goodsen <jgoodsen@trinidad.jpmorgan.com> wrote:


.... rest deleted ................

Can someone _PLEASE_ explain why there is so much discussion about what
language is the _BEST_ ?

As a new reader of this news group I obviuosly don't know the underlying
reasons for the high level of discussions on the suitability of one
language as opposed to another (namely Ada and C++). 

Why are people so fixed in their attitudes?

As _ENGINEERS_ why don't we use the best tool for the job instead of
sticking blindly to the one we like the best?

Or is Software Engineering now becoming a religion where faith and hope
reign?

Re: Fantastic Ada promotional piece from Rational (long)

[Michael Feldman]

In article <rodc.779845282@hawk>, Rod Cheshire <rodc@adied.oz.au> wrote:

>As _ENGINEERS_ why don't we use the best tool for the job instead of
>sticking blindly to the one we like the best?

Well, one of the problems is that there really are few objective
measures of "best tool for the job" in software development. So
we are reduced to religious-type persuasion. As a 20-year CS
professor, I came to the conviction long ago that our best hope
is to educate our students to be discerning, by exposing them to
a fair number of languages, tools, systems, etc., working through
some comparisons - trying to keep them as factual as possible -
and adminishing them that the world they will inhabit is constantly
changing, so today's great fads will be tomorrow's "old hat."

>Or is Software Engineering now becoming a religion where faith and hope
>reign?

Well, to a certain extent it always has been "religious." I think there
are several reasons:

(1) it's a new discipline (relative to traditional science and
    engineering); indeed, there is not even a universally-accepted
    definition of what is _is_. Even the very definitions are religious.

(2) it has become very crowded with people very rapidly, so just keeping
    in touch with others in the field is tremendously difficult;

(3) it is very product-oriented, mostly because we are still not sure how 
    to divorce it from products (I include languages as "products").
    We are therefore vulnerable to the best and worst kinds of
    salesmanship.

(4) The field is predominantly male, and (as my wife points out),
    the urge to persuade others that your favorite thing is
    bigger, better, faster than others', is much more a "guy thing"
    than a "girl thing."  How many female names do you see in the
    flame wars on the net? My wife says it's because the women have
    better things to do with their time than engage in endless
    pi**ing contests.

I believe it is this last factor that causes us to measure success mainly 
in terms of market share.

Naturally, all this is also a matter of opinion. :-)

Mike Feldman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman -  chair, SIGAda Education Working Group
Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The George Washington University -  Washington, DC 20052 USA
202-994-5919 (voice) - 202-994-0227 (fax) - mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)
NOTE NEW PHONE NUMBER.
"Pork is all that stuff the government gives the other guys."
------------------------------------------------------------------------