Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)

[dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller)]

In article <INFO-ADA%95042115084536@VM1.NODAK.EDU>,
 <CONDIC@PSAVAX.PWFL.COM> wrote:
>From: Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
>Subject: Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)
>Original_To:  PROFS%"SMTP@PWAGPDB"
>Original_cc:  CONDIC
>
>
>
>David Weller <dweller@STARBASE.NEOSOFT.COM> writes:
>>the last year (hmm, I guess I just did :-).  Many of those people
>>have picked up GNAT and were able to explore Ada without the
>>slightest financial committment.  And, yes, they knew they were
>>getting what they were paying for :-)  Also, GNAT has given me
>>
>    I personally think that GNAT may do a lot to help "bootstrap"
>    Ada95 usage, but I think it's important to point out that it isn't
>    real likely to cut into the commercial vendor's business - at
>    least with respect to major software development efforts for
>    critical products. It also isn't going to guarantee the long term
>    success of Ada95 - so it's no panacea.
>
Correct.  I could hardly claim it is.  It's "just another Ada95
compiler".  Yes, it raises the standard.  Over the long run, will it
be the leader?  I'd say no more than gcc is in the commercial market
(which is to say, they have a respectable slice, but nothing
overwhelmingly superior).  We both agree completely that GNAT is NO
THREAT to commercial businesses.  GNAT will, however, allow those
businesses to EXPAND their market (they're just not trying to
capitalize on that correctly, from what I'm seeing)

>    Could you imagine persuading the Air Force to commit themselves to
>    flight-certifying software or risking expensive payloads on a
>    compiler that someone downloaded from the Internet and has no
>    "corporate" support behind it? (Maybe in "the olden days" but not
>    likely today!) Our customers *know* we need a vendor behind us as
>    part of "the team" who is going to provide bug fixes, tools,
>    customizations, etc.
>
Right, that's why companies like Cygnus, ACT, and Labtek exist -- to
bring the "industrial strength" to free compilers.  However, as a
"decision maker" in my company, I have to look at MUCH more than just
cost to determine which compiler to choose.  Certification (or
certifiability) and performance are other drivers (to name a couple).

>    In other words - it's probably good that GNAT is out there as a
>    learning tool, but I can't see it as a substitute for a good
>    quality commercial product with lots of support software bundled
>    around it and an "800" number to call when the software doesn't
>    work as expected. Hence, it's probably not much of a threat to
>    commercial vendors and if they see it that way, then they aren't
>    looking at the value they should be adding to the product.
>
Yup.  Although I hasten to add that I've found faster "support" for
gcc stuff through the gnu.* hierarchy than I've typically had from
some other vendors (MickeySoft comes to mind immediately).

>    As for cost? I still believe that if Ada95 is going to get
>    anywhere, there needs to be a shrink-wrapped product at CompUSA
>    with manuals, bindings, support tools, etc for popular home
>    computers at somewhere between $200 and $400. (Best bet, is to get
>    the base product under $200 and don't wuss out on the support!) If
>    someone were to take GNAT and build such a product out of it,
>    you'd stand a good chance of making it successful.
>
Yes, and I hope that folks like Jim Dorman can do just that (despite
my grousing at Jim, I _do_ have hope that his (and all) Ada95 product
is a smashing success).

Pax right back to ya :-)


-- 
      Frustrated with C, C++, Pascal, Fortran?  Ada95 _might_ be for you!
	  For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command:
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
		if u cn rd ths, u r gd enuf to chg to Ada   :-)