Re: Ada student homework ?

[Nicolas Brunot <n.brunot@cadwin.com>]

Robert Dewar wrote :

> In article <3A0C03BE.C3216454@cadwin.com>,
>   Nicolas Brunot <n.brunot@cadwin.com> wrote:
> > If you want companies to use Ada, don't tell them that
> > Microsoft or Oracle are failures
> > (Unless you prove you can make better than them, but in that
> > case you would be as famous as them ...)
>
> No, Microsoft is not successful in terms of quality, but in
> terms of quantity. This is a perfectly valid goal, and indeed
> is the road to riches. Ford was much more successful than
> Bugatti, but I do not think people confuse this with the
> quality of the cars.

Microsoft is successfull in the sense that they provide softwares that
are not necessarily good, but users choose Microsoft because whatever
you think it's much faster easier and cheaper to get Windows PC, connect
a Printer or everything else and find available software than on any
other OS.
Mac may be an exception, but it crashes a lot too, and software offer is
not so rich and not so cheap.
On a daily utilitary basis, Ford is certainly more satisfactory for the
user than Bugatti, even if you are a dream car lover, and can afford the
tremendous cost ...
Bugatti or Ferrari owners use those cars as toys for the rich adult
people they are, and certainly not as tools, they have 3 or 4 others
cars much more satisfying for daily use, and they know that.
Your comparison is quite explanatory about your concept of developping
software ... and shows that you are far more concerned by the fame and
proudness of the developper, than by the normal user who is not
interested in computers and asks for just a tool and is concerned about
its cost .

> If your goal is to have companies like Microsoft use Ada,

Don't make a fixation on Microsoft, what it's true for them is also true
for all software companies

> Sometimes I wonder whether typical PC software is not a repeat
> of the red delicious apple debacle (where the suppliers thought
> that what consumers wanted was a nice looking apple and they
> succeeded, unfortunately, people are not actually buying them
> because they were also looking for a nice tasting apple. You
> and I as tax payers are about to lauch one of the biggest
> bailouts of its kind in history to rescue that industry).

We don't pay taxes in the same country, but you are right.
People want reliable software developped by smart people, but they also
want them easy to find, easy to use and cheap.
If you cannot (don't want) provide that on Windows, first you have to
develop a new OS better cheaper and easier to use and find than Windows.

After that you have to impose it on the market.
And then only after, get rid of Windows.
Otherwise you are going to develop wonderful software you are very proud
of, but unfortunetaly, users are also looking for software working well
for the PCs they own and won't buy yours softs, even if you tell them :
"You stupid should know that if you are not satisfied, it's Microsoft
fault, not mine .."
Then all tax payers will have to pay for your convictions ...

> In the PC World, people are simply accustomed to unrealiable
> software that does strange things and breaks all the time.

I have no strange devices on my PC (home or professional ..) and use
them only as tools.
I don't find it crashes su much when you don't play too much with it and
do not act like someone who would every day try to change something in
his car's engine.
Macintosh can crash a lot too..
I have Linux and it still requires quite some computer knowledge to use
as easily as windows (hope this is going on to improve)

> of the most remarkable bugs of all time was the bug in Windows
> 95 that caused it to realiable crash after a few days, but no
> one noticed, because this crash just appeared to be normal
> operation in the unlikely event that you could keep your
> Windows 95 machine running that long.

I saw such behavior in Gnat :-)    but of course gnat blames it's not
its fault ... which everybody is doing.
I you are not the standard Windows is, you must be satisfying with
Windows bugs, not blame them. It's your problem, not the user's one.

> But Ada, and the philosophy that surrounds Ada *can* be
> significant aids in achieving realiability.

The first thing to achieve reliability is to consider that Ada is
nothing more than a tool, often very efficient, sometime not the best
one.
Because you make religious opinion about Ada more important than
reliability and efficiency.

> I think it is ultimately a more successful path for pushing
> Ada use to emphasize the role that Ada can play in improving
> reliability, rather than trying to make the point that it can
> work well in the current world of get-it-out-the-door,
> working-more-or-less-is-all-that-matters software delivery.
> (a recent thread on whether "works OK" is the most important
> aspect of software performance is relevant here).

Pushing Ada is not exactly a success until now ....
That should make you ask yourself some questions, and ask yourself if by
chance, users wouldn't be looking for Ford cars instead of Bugatti cars
...
They dream about Bugatti, but even when they have one, they often ride
Ford ...