UML for Ada

UML for Ada

[Tools]

Those interested in UML modeling, code generation and reengineering Ada
code to models can find information at:

http://www.excelsoftware.com/umlforada.html

Re: UML for Ada

[Georg Bauhaus]

Tools <excel@lobo.net> wrote:
: 
: http://www.excelsoftware.com/umlforada.html

Is this the same company that has once offered an XML parser
(other than XML/Ada or XML4Ada95), LGPL with a $$ manual?
(Can't find it any more.)


-- Georg

Re: UML for Ada

[Deborah Torrekens]

Georg,

I don't know about that, but if you're looking for an XML parser for Ada,
with excellent performance, you might want to check:
http://www.xmlbooster.com/

Cheers,
Debbie

"Georg Bauhaus" <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message
news:c273bd$osu$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de...
> Tools <excel@lobo.net> wrote:
> :
> : http://www.excelsoftware.com/umlforada.html
>
> Is this the same company that has once offered an XML parser
> (other than XML/Ada or XML4Ada95), LGPL with a $$ manual?
> (Can't find it any more.)
>
>
> -- Georg

Re: XML [was: UML] for Ada

[Georg Bauhaus]

Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote:
: Tools <excel@lobo.net> wrote:
: : 
: : http://www.excelsoftware.com/umlforada.html
: 
: Is this the same company that has once offered an XML parser
: (other than XML/Ada or XML4Ada95), LGPL with a $$ manual?
: (Can't find it any more.)

To be more specific, there was an announcement on c.l.ada of
professional XML parser software, licensed using LGPL, and
suggesting the purchase of a manual around $40. IIRC, the source
code was available in a .tar.gz with version number 0.1 or 1.0.

If anyone remembers, could you drop me a line? I'm comparing
parsers and this one could be useful.


-- TIA, Georg

RE: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.]

From: Bob Leif
To: Al Christians et al.
We built a commercial application with AdaSAGE under DOS (1). One major
problem with AdaSAGE was that it was that it did not use many of the
features of Ada 95; and to a large extent, it was Modula in Ada. However, it
was fast and reliable. From my experience with AdaSAGE, the combination of a
modern Ada database, such as Michael P. Card's FIRM, and an XML based GUI
could create some rich entrepreneurs.

I might note the AdaSAGE's and I believe Ada's biggest problem has been the
DoD's inability to  transfer Ada technology to the commercial sector.
Although US Defense contractors often have excellent technology, it appears,
at least in the case of Ada, that they have had no way to spin-off this
technology.

(1) R. C. Leif, R. Rios, M. C. Becker, C. K. Becker, J. T. Self, and S. B.
Leif, "The Creation of a Laboratory Instrument Quality Monitoring System
with AdaSAGE". Advanced Techniques in Analytical Cytology, Optical Diagnosis
of Living Cells and Biofluids, Ed. T. Askura, D. L. Farkas, R. C. Leif, A.
V. Priezzhev, , and B. J. Tromberg.. A. Katzir Progress in Biomedical Optics
Series Editor SPIE Proceedings Series, Vol. 2678, 232-239 (1996).

-----Original Message-----
From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
[mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org]On Behalf Of Al Christians
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 9:55 PM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)


"Michael P. Card" wrote:
>
> OK, but realize here when you say "outside military and embedded
> systems" you are excluding the main domains for Ada. That would be
> akin to me asking you to show me a bunch of defense contractors that
> switched from Ada to Java/C++ for million-line plus real-time
> applications that succeeded and are still committed to Java/C++ today!

It's not like Ada wasn't supposed to be good for banal, hackneyed or
workaday applications.  It used to be popular amongst the European
banks, but have they stuck with it?  And there was Sage.  When Sage was
in Modula-2, it was used to develop a business-type database app that
was a success with many users (hundreds of public-sector organizations
???) across the US.  Then Sage was converted to AdaSage, appeared on
the Walnut Creek Ada CD, and was supposed to make it easy to develop
run-of-the-mill database applications in Ada.  What share of the
run-of-the-mill database application market does Ada now hold?  How
successful has AdaSage been vis-a-vis Modula-2 Sage?


Al

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Al Christians]

"Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." wrote:
> From my experience with AdaSAGE, the combination of a
> modern Ada database, such as Michael P. Card's FIRM, and an XML based > GUI could create some rich entrepreneurs.
> 

So, attempting to become a poster child 'rich entrepreneur' on behalf
of Ada I found some materials on-line about FIRM.  It's from Lockheed
and Martin, the same people who have done so well with AdaSage.  From
the web pages, I look for product or ordering info, so I can see how
much it costs to be rich entrepreneur.  No info there.  This is Ada and
military-industrial complex suppliers.  I assume it's the same old
story: If you have to ask, you can't afford it. 


Al

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Michael P. Card]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4729 bytes --]

Hey Al (& everyone else on CLA)-

A minor correction here to Dr. Leif's citation: it isn't my FIRM. I was one member of the excellent team that built
FIRM, and today I am one member of the team that is improving and deploying FIRM's successor (RODEO). Strictly
speaking, the intellectual property rights for FIRM and RODEO belong to Lockheed Martin Corporation and I think the
U.S. Government has "unlimited rights" as well, i.e. Lockheed cannot charge the U.S. Government a "license fee" to use
FIRM inasmuch as it was paid for with U.S. tax dollars.

Anyway, the situation you portray is this:

>This is Ada and military-industrial complex suppliers.  I assume it's the same old
>story: If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

I think the situation is worse than that! Right now, you can't get these particular products no matter how much $ you
have because defense contractors are not set up to be independent software vendors like Microsoft, Oracle, etc. Defense
contractors are very much (in my mind) like housing contractors. If you want them to build an addition on your house,
you give them a call and they come estimate the job and give you a quote (this is the RFP or Request For Proposal
phase). You haggle on the price, maybe you decide to give up a few square feet or a half bath to get within your budget
(the BAFO or Best And Final Offer process), and then finally you hire them to do the work (going under contract). They
then take longer than they originally estimated to finish the work ;-)

A business set up to operate in this kind of "build-to-order" environment is simply not capable of mastering the other
kind of business model, which would be more like "speculative manufacturing," where you build something you *think*
people will want to buy, thus putting your $$ at risk in hopes enough people will buy your product that you can recoup
your costs and make a profit. This kind of business model relies heavily on marketing and advertising to try to create
interest in the product, and DoD contractors really don't spend a lot of money on that, just like housing contractors
don't do much more than put ads in the Yellow Pages (maybe a billboard now and then).

So, products like FIRM and RODEO are developed as part of the process of building the requested DoD product (Seawolf
submarine, sonar system, EW system, whatever), and the intellectual property rights then lie with a business that is
not capable of turning these things into commercial products. Sure, we have made some half steps at this but there
really is no easy way to do it, and William Dale's post about lawyers is right on. There are a lot of legal nits to
work through when you even try to turn a taxpayer-funded piece of software into a commercial product. There are
probably open source legal considerations as well, and without an established policy on what to do even investigating
these issues will cost $$. Then there's the questions: How big would the market for these kinds of things be? What
would people pay? You have to spend $$ to even get decent answers to these kinds of questions, and in the DoD
contracting world that kind of $$ comes straight out of profit as the government cannot be billed for it. That makes
this kind of investment a non-starter in most places.

The easiest answer (IMO) would be for the US govt to "seed" commercial ventures for these kinds of things by providing
start-up funding to commercialize these products. This seems unfair since the government already paid to develop them,
but there is typically more investment required to make a truly off-the-shelf commercial product beyond what is needed
to build a product as a part of a larger system. The DoD contractors are not paid to spend this extra $$, they are paid
and encouraged to spend as little as possible. They are not motivated to start their own commercial enterprises and
they are usually not even equipped to do so if they wanted to. This leaves a gap that is generally not filled by
anyone.

- Mike

Al Christians wrote:

> "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." wrote:
> > From my experience with AdaSAGE, the combination of a
> > modern Ada database, such as Michael P. Card's FIRM, and an XML based > GUI could create some rich entrepreneurs.
> >
>
> So, attempting to become a poster child 'rich entrepreneur' on behalf
> of Ada I found some materials on-line about FIRM.  It's from Lockheed
> and Martin, the same people who have done so well with AdaSage.  From
> the web pages, I look for product or ordering info, so I can see how
> much it costs to be rich entrepreneur.  No info there.  This is Ada and
> military-industrial complex suppliers.  I assume it's the same old
> story: If you have to ask, you can't afford it.
>
> Al

[-- Attachment #2: Card for Michael P. Card --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 344 bytes --]

begin:vcard 
n:Card;Michael
tel;fax:315-456-0441
tel;work:315-456-3022
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Lockheed Martin ;Ocean, Radar, and Sensor Systems
version:2.1
email;internet:michael.p.card@lmco.com
title:Principal Software Engineer
adr;quoted-printable:;;Electronics Park=0D=0ABuilding 6, Room 201;Syracuse;NY;13221;USA
fn:Michael Card
end:vcard

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Ed Falis]

"Michael P. Card" wrote:

> A business set up to operate in this kind of "build-to-order" environment is simply not capable of mastering the other
> kind of business model, which would be more like "speculative manufacturing," where you build something you *think*
> people will want to buy, thus putting your $$ at risk in hopes enough people will buy your product that you can recoup
> your costs and make a profit.

Yes, and the inability to handle it on the procurement side had a lot to do with the demise of several compiler vendors
(who were following the ISV model), because the expectations were for custom support / product enhancement at commodity
prices.  Witness the (lack of) success of Aonix' windows product, that was priced comparably to Visual Studio, and
approached it in terms of capability.  But Ada customers wanted the kind of support they got with 5-digit development
systems.

By the way, Al, I don't remember selling any 6-digit development systems in the 16 years I was with Alsys/Thomson/Aonix.
Maybe the big R got away with it, but I don't think anyone else did, and few tried.

- Ed

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[DuckE]

"Ed Falis" <efalis@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B4B613B.25659225@mediaone.net...
> "Michael P. Card" wrote:
[...]
>
> Yes, and the inability to handle it on the procurement side had a lot to
do with the demise of several compiler vendors
> (who were following the ISV model), because the expectations were for
custom support / product enhancement at commodity
> prices.  Witness the (lack of) success of Aonix' windows product, that was
priced comparably to Visual Studio, and
> approached it in terms of capability.  But Ada customers wanted the kind
of support they got with 5-digit development
> systems.

As an ObjectAda user it is my opinion that the lack of success of Aonix'
windows product likely has little to do with wanting the support of 5-digit
development systems.

Unless support means providing a usable debugger with the system.  Until
version 7.1.2 the debugger was a bad joke.  Still with 7.2 the debugger has
some problems (though few).

When a debugger doesn't allow you to set breakpoints or exammine the content
of arrays of data, or just as bad, incorrectly displays data, it is very
frustrating.  Frustrating enough to move to a different development
environment.  Sometimes frustrating enough to move to a different
programming language that provides a debugging enviroment that works.

In order for ObjectAda to succeed it must be a solid product, and it must
continue to grow and improve.  Unfortunately, about the same time what I
believe is the first viable version of the product was delivered (OA 7.2)
Aonix apparently decided that it was not a product worth the significant
continued investment to to improve.

SteveD

>
> By the way, Al, I don't remember selling any 6-digit development systems
in the 16 years I was with Alsys/Thomson/Aonix.
> Maybe the big R got away with it, but I don't think anyone else did, and
few tried.
>
> - Ed
>
>

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Ed Falis]

DuckE wrote:

> As an ObjectAda user it is my opinion that the lack of success of Aonix'
> windows product likely has little to do with wanting the support of 5-digit
> development systems.

I'll continue to disagree about that one.

>
>
> Unless support means providing a usable debugger with the system.  Until
> version 7.1.2 the debugger was a bad joke.  Still with 7.2 the debugger has
> some problems (though few).

I also concede that there were problems in that area.

>  Unfortunately, about the same time what I
> believe is the first viable version of the product was delivered (OA 7.2)
> Aonix apparently decided that it was not a product worth the significant
> continued investment to to improve.
>

Yes, I was part of the dead weight the company relieved itself of ;-)

- Ed

re: UML for Ada

[raj]

My thanks to those who directed me to UMLStudio.
It appears to be just right for my needs. And  yes, it handles Ada
95....

( For those who are interested, it is at
http://www.pragsoft.com/products.html . )

Bizarrely, RogueWave has a UML Studio ( note the space ! ) for MSVC++.
( at http://www.stingray.com/products/umlstudio/ )
What fun ! :-) I wonder who is going to sue whom ! ;-)