Re: is ada dead?

[James Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net>]

Andrzej Lewandowski wrote:
> 
> "Michal Nowak" <vinnie@inetia.pl> wrote in message news:mailman.994589409.11874.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org...
> > On 01-07-07, at 17:37, Andrzej Lewandowski  wrote:
>  >
> > Can be true, can be false. Program lifecycle is not only coding. There is also
> > maintnace, new versions developent. These phases are less money-consuming in
> > Ada than in other mentioned languages. One important thing - you buy compiler
> > one time and use it for long period. It is used for writting many programs.
> > So I think, that good compiler is worthy investing.
> >
> 
> I am sufficiektly familiar with the industry and business to respond
> just with single word: NONSENSE.

Not entirely. Ada is not always the cheapest compiler purchase.
Sometimes it is very competitive in compiler costs. With many other
languages you also must invest in a suite of enabling tools and
libraries to complete your work and your process. Many of these
expenses can be avoided for Ada. The overall cost of Ada development
environments is actually reasonably competitive with C, or C++.

With Java cost is quite variable. Do you use a free compiler, with
no support? You can do this with Ada, if you choose. Do you 
buy a compiler, and a set of JVM implementations for all your
host platforms? Do you buy a develpment tool such as Visual Age?

Most professional development environments require some kind of
professional tool support. Support costs money. With Java you have
the need for ongoing training to keep up with changes in the 
API from release to release. How well do third party compilers track
the Sun API changes? 

Java has a number of attractive features. Unfortunately, language
stability is not yet one of them. New Java versions are mostly
compatible with old versions. How much testing do you need to
perform to determine if your code has problems with the new version
of Java? What costs are related to that testing? 

The truth in industry and business is that most companies have no
idea what software costs. They employ software development and
maintenance staff. They purchase training and tools. They invest
in process development. They still run at CMM level 1. Most of their
software "knowledge" is no more than urban myth. Software projects
in most companies are traditionally over budget and behind
schedule. It is not unheard of for projects to take years to build,
with dozens of software developers, software analysts, software
testers, and software mangers, only to be cancelled. How do the
costs of any one technology, including compilers, languages, or
tools, begin to compare with the cost of uncontrolled software
projects? In fact, one of the biggest cost improvements for some
companies is to find a tool that makes the failure of the project
obvious at an earlier date, saving wasted money.

Changing languages should not be done without a good combination
of technical and financial reasons. Any fundamental technology
change increases the apparent risk of project failure because it 
adds uncertainty. Managers in many companies are working hard to
try to reduce software costs. Many of them actually fear software.
They are willing to try anything to make their bottom line look
better. They are also aware that it is possible to make things
even worse. The result is that they chase technology fads.
When they hear that their peers in some other company have switched
technologies, and they hear a lot of sales hyperbole about how
this new technology will fix their problems, they make the change.
This process is not logical. It is driven by fear and desperation.

Jim Rogers
Colorado Springs, Colorado USA