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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7bcba1db9ed24fa7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-08 18:48:39 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.stealth.net!news-east.rr.com!news.rr.com!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.71!wnfilter1!worldnet-localpost!bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3B490E02.E50A409E@worldnet.att.net> From: James Rogers X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: is ada dead? References: <3B460DA9.C2965042@ix.netcom.com> <9ff447f2.0107061757.34ca0723@posting.google.com> <3b47806a_4@news3.prserv.net> <3b48d27d_4@news3.prserv.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 01:48:38 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.86.35.69 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 994643318 12.86.35.69 (Mon, 09 Jul 2001 01:48:38 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 01:48:38 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9650 Date: 2001-07-09T01:48:38+00:00 List-Id: Andrzej Lewandowski wrote: > > "Michal Nowak" 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