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-Thread: 103376,afb4d45672b1e262 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news4.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!kanaga.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 20:07:25 +0200 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Making money on open source, if not by selling _support_, then how? References: <7NOdne-iYtWmIafZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@megapath.net> <292bf$443bb4e4$45491254$20549@KNOLOGY.NET> <1oc8e78n8ow5e.1mhfktiyo0wur$.dlg@40tude.net> <1144841001.8883.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> <443d348c$0$11063$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net> <1144878978.9392.89.camel@localhost.localdomain> <443e79f7$0$18273$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net> <1145019338.9034.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1avrw69fdf3cq$.3mo2zf4524dv$.dlg@40tude.net> In-Reply-To: <1avrw69fdf3cq$.3mo2zf4524dv$.dlg@40tude.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <4441526c$0$18268$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Apr 2006 22:07:08 MEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 85c19c22.newsread2.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=d:P3F_e5o@8?0I78\m5cj:Q5U85hF6f;4jW\KbG]kaM8AV6U:Z=fE=?@TojDP4[JW=hP3YJKgE\jC0@XXMj8 X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3833 Date: 2006-04-15T22:07:08+02:00 List-Id: Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > The measure should have accuracy suitable for prediction / control. Well, yes, typical economical measurements are used for politically important predictions. This is a fact. > Immeasurable <= not enough accurate. Yes, and accuracy is a thing that is defined by people. It isn't 100% induced into some ontology by the the thing to be measured. > "Clinical/brain death" and "one caused by suspect's action" are different > "measures." Different grain size, same scale label. The formal words "discretion" and "judgement" even have the word "measurement" in them, in German: Er-messen. For a reason. >> there are only exchanges of money >> and goods, and law, and informal rules. > It is a deep philosophical question unrelated to the discussion. No, when it comes to decision making, observations and perceptions are just facts: People do measure the quality of programs, even though they do not always state their criteria. People do discuss the relative value of programming languages, even though other people might consider more or less criteria, and say some are missing from the evaluation. >>>> Can you say that about Ada? >>> No. It does not come to this. >> It will come to this the moment you drop a few words about Ada, >> with caution. > > No runner. You have missed the starting point: technical superiority does > not matter. I'm not asking you to say "better" or "worse" than, in technical terms. I'm not asking you to brag about technical superior Ada programs. I'm asking you to cautiously mention Ada, because when people start connecting this kind of program with this "Ada-word", they form an opinion. This can be a reasonable approach to inform, fleetingly, about the merits of Ada: by not stressing its merit. Just make sure it gets connected to the desirable qualities of software products.