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,c62a5e526aafd9d4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-22 05:21:55 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Windows CE? Date: 22 Sep 2001 05:21:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0109220421.291fd832@posting.google.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1001161314 32394 127.0.0.1 (22 Sep 2001 12:21:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Sep 2001 12:21:54 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13246 Date: 2001-09-22T12:21:54+00:00 List-Id: "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." wrote in message news:... > From: Bob Leif > To: John McCabe et al. > This thread is illustrative of the major problem with > marketing Ada. Windows CE is obviously a potentially good > market for Ada. See below, our marketing department does not accept that an unsubstantiated claim by Robert Leif (or anyone else) that something is obvious is equivalent to fact :-) One thing you learn quickly in the Ada business (or any other compiler business) is that there are always people who are willing to tell you "build this port, it is sure to be a winner". We have made the mistake of believing that a couple of times in the past (and that was in cases when the message was coming from very credible sources). > Unfortunately, it appears that the compiler companies are > reticent about creating a product on internal funding. Not at all, it is just that we only do this if we have good evidence that the internal funding is well spent. Many significant products have been developed purely with ACT internal funding, including several ports (e.g. the Interix port), and tools (ASIS, GLIDE, GVD etc). > Since the original market for Ada was primarily directed > toward the Defense Department, the compiler vendors have > had little experience with the consumer market. I am not clear about what you mean by consumer market. Certainly several of our customers are in what I would consider to be the consumer market (e.g. cable television). But if you mean low cost compilers for hobbyists, then it is not that we have no experience in this market, it is simply that we think it is not the market for us. If you think there is a market here, then why not put your money where your convictions are, and generate such a product. The nice thing about Free Software is that you don't have to start from scratch, you can create such a product using GNAT as the starting point. This has been tried before and failed, but if you know how to make it work, by all means give it a try. > In most companies, the marketing department would > determine if a market had a good chance for profitability > and management would authorize the creation of the > product. That of course is how Ada Core Technologies works, and I would be surprised if it is not how other companies work. It is just that we have a different view from you on what markets have a good chance for profitability. > In order for Ada to thrive, Ada vendors are going to have > to become more entrepreneurial including learning how to > attract capital. Actually Ada Core Technologies is thriving just fine from revenues without the need to attract capital, and that is the way we prefer to keep it, since that allows us to make long term decisions without the pressure of capital providers pushing for maximizing short term returns. Our revenue and profitability are on a steady upwards trajectory. We are not getting rich Microsoft style, but we have adequate resources to support active future development of Ada in those areas that *we* think are important. Of course others may disagree, and Robert Leif has always disagreed, but he seems to be willing only to try to exhort others to spend their money, and not to spend his own. We make our own decisions on which markets to address, and so far these decisions have worked well for us (and we think for the Ada marketplace). But competition is a great force for progress, and once again, I think it would be just fine if Robert would try to see if his ideas could be put into practice :-) > I might note that the number of "hobbyists" is > potentially large and could be a source of revenue. Well there you go, if there is a potentially large source of revenue that is going untapped because other vendors are missing it, that sounds like an opportunity you should persue. > However, I suspect that a broad Ada market will > require extremely user friendly tools. Well for sure everyone is in favor of "extremely user friendly tools". Of course this broad consensus starts to breakdown when you try to agree on exactly what that means. In particular I see a tension between ease of use and power that is not so easy to address. Our development is more in the area of supporting large projects than small scale hobbyists (e.g. the development of the project support facility in GLIDE). But on the other hand, Martin Carlisle has done a very nice job of addressing smaller scale visual development. I am sure Martin would be happy to get suggestions on how AdaGIDE can be made "extremely user friendly" if you don't think it is already. > I also strongly believe that the > actual core of Ada is inherently easier that that of its > competitors: Java, C, C++, and BASIC. Are you talking ease of use here, or ease of implementation. I am assuming it must be the former, not even the most rabid Ada supporter would claim Ada is easier to implement than C. As for ease of use, I generally agree, But remember that ease of use and technical superiority are not guarantees of success. Look for example at the failure of PL/1 to displace COBOL despite huge marketing push by IBM. PL/1 is not an ideal language, but it is clearly superior to COBOL in all respects from a language point of view. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies P.S. we are certainly keeping a close watch on the CE situation, and, as hinted in this thread, it is by no means impossible to use GNAT on CE today for certain applications. As to when a full CE port of GNAT Professional appears, that depends on serious customer interest, which is gauged by the contacts our sales department receives, trade show interactions etc (but not by reading CLA :-)