Re: Proving Correctness (was Java Portability)

["nicolas" <n.brunot@cadwin.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1558 bytes --]

"Pascal Obry" <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> a �crit dans le message news:
uzo9cu3o8.fsf@wanadoo.fr...
> Well said. Either way, Nicolas, you just can't get something for free. You
> should either comit some time or money.

I'm fully convinced that ACT would be very happy to get a lot of money from
potential customers :-) :-)
But Stephen and you are reducing the problem to ACT company and ACT
customers.

We were talking about Ada language in a much more general way.
You seem to expect people to be your customer, and pay you before you
satisfy them, while they may find what they need with others Ada compilers
or others languages, which is already satisfying.

When you are in a competitive market, and especially not the dominant actor,
that's a litttle optimistic :-)
Development languages market is a kind of competitive market where Ada is
not especially the dominant one ...

You know, usually, companies first invest to develop a viable product, and
only after that, get an income from their customers, if the product is
satisfying :-)
To rephrase what you said :
"Either way, ACT, you just can't get something for free. You should either
comit some time or money" to develop satisfying libraries before making
money with them ...

I don't understand very well how you can hope I (or anybody else) am going
to pay ACT, Aonix or Rational for an XML library, when I'm using a fully
satisfying, available, and free Java one ......
May be I missed something, but I don't think I'm the only one to have some
problems to understand your way of thinking ...