MicroSoft to purchase Aonix?

MicroSoft to purchase Aonix?

[Mike D Bates]

Now that I have your attention....  No, MicroSoft isn't going to
purchase Aonix, which is a shame, because the only way our company
will ever use Ada is if Bill Gates is pushing it.

My company builds aircraft simulators -- the kind used for pilot
training, with real cockpit controls and instruments, full motion, and
wraparound out-the-window visual scenes.  We're looking at moving from
Unix platforms to running simulation on a cluster of Intel-based
syatems running NT.  The reason?  The hardware is more plentiful and
cheaper than what we currently use, and there's a better chance that
Intel and MicroSoft will still be around in 20 years (so the argument
goes).

Along with the new platform, we'll be using a new language.  The
options are C++ and Ada95.  I've been arguing for Ada95, and the
people involved in making the decision seem to be persuaded that with
Ada we'd produce better, more efficient, more maintainable code.
There's concern about what kind of mess our Fortran programmers would
make if we handed them C++ to use.

Nevertheless, C++ will be selected for use on all of our simulators
for the next 10 years.

The reasons boil down to: "MicroSoft is behind it" and "everybody is
doing it" and "Ada's a dead language".  More specifically:

"Any improvements in new releases of NT will be immediately accessible
in C++, but we might have to wait a year or so before Aonix has
upgraded the Ada compiler to reflect the changes."

"First it was Alsys, then Thomson, then Aonix.  Seems pretty unstable.
I know MicroSoft will be around in 10 years.  How do I know this
little Ada company will still be around?"

"Countless millions of dollars are being spent to develop tools, class
libraries, etc., for use in NT development.  We won't be able to use
them if we go with Ada.  The Ada market is too small to bother with
for software development tool makers."

"Ada is like Betamax.  It may be technically superior, but it's on its
way out.  Everyone is doing C++, and we'll be passed by if we go with
Ada.  Ada is a dead-end."

"Some of our outside customers will be maintaining the simulator
software themselves.  They've heard how wonderful C++ is.  They won't
want to buy a simulator programmed in Ada."

"We don't want to swim against the stream."

"Everyone's learning C++; no one's learning Ada.  We'll always have an
easier time hiring C++ programmers than Ada programmers -- and they'll
be cheaper too."

"C++ is the native language of the NT platform.  You have to write
device drivers in C++."

"MicroSoft uses C++ for their development.  Don't you think they'd use
Ada instead if it was really that much better?"

Anyone have any good __evidence__ that counters these arguments?  (And
yes, I've been to www.adahome.com, but a lot of the info on commercial
use of Ada appears to be pretty old.)

Thanks,

Mike Bates

-- 
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Section 227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a
download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US.  E-mailing denotes
acceptance of these terms.

Re: MicroSoft to purchase Aonix?

[Tom Moran]

> "Any improvements in new releases of NT will be immediately accessible
> in C++, but we might have to wait a year or so before Aonix has
> upgraded the Ada compiler to reflect the changes."
  What changes does the *compiler* need to keep up with possible changes
in NT?  Will MS release, and your company use, a new, incompatible,
version of NT?

> 
> "First it was Alsys, then Thomson, then Aonix.  Seems pretty unstable.
> I know MicroSoft will be around in 10 years.  How do I know this
> little Ada company will still be around?"
> 
  Do you recall people saying, some years back, that they should buy PCs
from Texas Instruments because TI would still be around?  Will MS still
make OSes suitable for niche markets like yours in 10 years, or will it
concentrate on the mass entertainment market?

Re: MicroSoft to purchase Aonix?

[Robert I. Eachus]

In article <338DD91B.537C@bix.com> Tom Moran <tmoran@bix.com> writes:

 >   Do you recall people saying, some years back, that they should buy PCs
 > from Texas Instruments because TI would still be around?  Will MS still
 > make OSes suitable for niche markets like yours in 10 years, or will it
 > concentrate on the mass entertainment market?

   That implies that Microsoft is building an OS suitable for
real-time simulation right now.

   (I am typing this on a Dell Dimension XPS Pro200n that I am in the
process of configuring NT 4.0 Workstation on, so I am not speaking out
of ignorance.  NT Workstation is very usable as a desktop--or deskside--
system, but as a server or real-time engine it has a ways to go.)
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Re: MicroSoft to purchase Aonix?

[W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)]

Some of your quoted arguments for C++ over Ada could (today at least)
apply better to Java over C++.

> "First it was Alsys, then Thomson, then Aonix.  Seems pretty unstable.
> I know MicroSoft will be around in 10 years.  How do I know this
> little Ada company will still be around?"

What do you want?  Stable tools or a stable name?  Don't forget
that Microsoft's definition of "standard" is "controlled by us"
and their process puts robustness and compatibility at a far lower
priority than bells, whistles, and flashing lights to attract the
average consumer.
 
> "Ada is like Betamax.  It may be technically superior, but it's on its
> way out.  Everyone is doing C++, and we'll be passed by if we go with
> Ada.  Ada is a dead-end."

Not applicable.  BetaMax only works on certain hardware.  Ada 
works on nearly everything.  Ada's technical superiority means 
lower costs in the long run, and often in the short run.  As for 
being "on the way out" Ada's downswing is only a prediction; C++
started its downswing some time ago.  (Easy to say; hard to prove)

> "MicroSoft uses C++ for their development.  Don't you think they'd use
> Ada instead if it was really that much better?"

I should emulate the company that crashes my Mac at least once a week?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA
Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS                  Tool-smith Wanna-be

Send me your advertisements!  I'll proofread and return them for only
$50.00 (US) per hundred words (plus a small fee per correction). For
full details, use a subject line of "Re: Proofreading Offer" on a
message of less than ten lines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: MicroSoft to purchase Aonix?

[Dale Stanbrough]

Mike D Bates writes:

"Anyone have any good __evidence__ that counters these arguments?  (And
 yes, I've been to www.adahome.com, but a lot of the info on commercial
 use of Ada appears to be pretty old.)"


Multitasking would seem to be a _big_ plus in your favour. From what i've
heard* I wouldn't want to try to program a threaded programming using the
wierd and wonderful NT (dreaded) threaded model.

Dale

[* David Butenhof, one of the POSIX threads people, seems to think there
are things wrong with some of the NT thread decisions]

Re: MicroSoft to purchase Aonix?

[Robert B. Love]

In <5mkgrl$akp@ion1.ionet.net> Mike D Bates wrote:
> 
> My company builds aircraft simulators -- the kind used for pilot
[deleted]

> Along with the new platform, we'll be using a new language.  The
> options are C++ and Ada95.  I've been arguing for Ada95, and the
> people involved in making the decision seem to be persuaded that with

Well, speaking as somebody else who builds flight simulators I'm 
glad to see you got to C++.  We'll have an even bigger competitive
advantage 'cause we're staying with Ada.


----------------------------------------------------------------
 Bob Love                                   MIME & NeXT Mail OK
 rlove@neosoft.com                            PGP key available
----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: MicroSoft to purchase Aonix?

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <5mkgrl$akp@ion1.ionet.net> mbates@ionet.net (Mike D Bates) writes:

> Anyone have any good __evidence__ that counters these arguments?  (And
> yes, I've been to www.adahome.com, but a lot of the info on commercial

The technical "arguments" such as they are, per usual, are simply
incorrect.  I'm sure you already know this.

The social "arguments" such as they are, per usual, are set up to be
self-fulfilling.

I'd say you are screwed.  And by implication, those of us affected by
this decision will get screwed (in some degree).

The software biz is much more like pop music than engineering.  Fads
rule.  Glossy banality is the key to "success".

Would any other technical area dismiss a technique, process, tool,
whatever, that would give them a leg up in producing their product
because it is not used by the competition?  Quite to the contrary.
Make no mistake - this attitude is one of the primary reasons why
software is such a laggard compared to any kind of hardware - even
"Ronco-ware" is better than most software.

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com

Re: MicroSoft to purchase Aonix?

[jim hopper]

In article <5mkgrl$akp@ion1.ionet.net>
mbates@ionet.net (Mike D Bates) writes:

> My company builds aircraft simulators -- the kind used for pilot
> training, with real cockpit controls and instruments, full motion, and
> wraparound out-the-window visual scenes.  We're looking at moving from
> Unix platforms to running simulation on a cluster of Intel-based
> syatems running NT.  The reason?  The hardware is more plentiful and
> cheaper than what we currently use, and there's a better chance that
> Intel and MicroSoft will still be around in 20 years (so the argument
> goes).


lets look at history shall we.  Think back a few years (much less than
20) can you run current microsoft OS's and tools on 286 or 386
hardware?? In fact its pretty hard to run them successfully on a 486 in
many cases isnt it ;-)  SO while microsoft will be around, your
hardware/software investment will be useless!  i mean if you had done
what they propose and written your stuff for windows  3.1 for instance,
how much help would you be able to get from microsoft if you needed
maintenance now??  They would simply tell you to rewrite it for windows
95 if you have bugs in 3.1 wouldnt they??  

this attitude is the fly in the ointment of all this COTS crap people
keep trying to sell.  sure the stuff will be maintained by the
companies, BUT their prioriities for maintaining backwards
compatability bear NO relationship to ours ;-)

Yes we build flight sims as well (well actually we build radar
simulations to go in the flight sims) and we do our work in Ada. we
interface with people who work in C and C++ but we do our parts in
ada95.

jim

Re: MicroSoft to purchase Aonix?

[Dale Pontius]

In article <01bc6c71$0d641ba0$220b6dce@my-pc.neosoft.com>,
        "Pat Rogers" <progers@acm.org> writes:
>
> Unfortunately, however, the people you are dealing with sound like they are
> making their decisions on non-technical criteria, so I think you are out of
> ammo anyway.  On the other hand, I've just had a lot of dental work done,
> and the nitrous has not quite worn off (thus this post), so maybe I'm not
> seeing something.
>
I continue to be amazed by the number of technical decisions that
these days are nearly entiredly being based on marketing criteria.
Makes you wonder when and where something's going to fail, and
how spectacularly. Also makes you hope lives won't be at stake.

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)

Re: MicroSoft to purchase Aonix?

[Scott Stallcup]

Mike D Bates wrote:
> 
> ... We're looking at moving from
> Unix platforms to running simulation on a cluster of Intel-based
> syatems running NT.  The reason?  The hardware is more plentiful and
> cheaper than what we currently use, ...
>
 
 I've lived through this one before.  Sure, the hardware is cheaper.
 But I've found that you will spend far more money on software 
 development when you try to cram a large, complex, application 
 onto small cheap hardware.  

 This is particularly true when your application fits on one large/fast 
 Unix box and you move to two or more Intel "toy" computers because 
 one Intel box will not handle the workload.

 How much do you spend on hardware vs. software payroll ?

> 
> Along with the new platform, we'll be using a new language.  The
> options are C++ and Ada95.  I've been arguing for Ada95, ...
>
  I think the hardware issue is a bigger problem...


--------------------------------------
Scott Stallcup  (stallcup@stsci.edu)
Space Telescope Science Institute

Re: MicroSoft to purchase Aonix?

[Steve Doiel]

In article <5mkgrl$akp@ion1.ionet.net>, mbates@ionet.net says...
>
>Now that I have your attention....  No, MicroSoft isn't going to
>purchase Aonix, which is a shame, because the only way our company
>will ever use Ada is if Bill Gates is pushing it.
>

Based on their track record, if MicroSoft purchased Aonix the first thing
they would do is kill the Ada product.  Ada doesn't evolve fast enough to
force everyone re-purchase their development environment periodically just
to keep up with the language.  If MicroSoft used Ada for internal development,
their software would probably have fewer bugs, so they would loose money on
upgrades ;-)

... you scared me for a minute there.

SteveD

Re: MicroSoft to purchase Aonix?

[Jerry van Dijk]

In article <5mkgrl$akp@ion1.ionet.net> mbates@ionet.net writes:

I know the feeling... <sigh>

>"Any improvements in new releases of NT will be immediately accessible
>in C++, but we might have to wait a year or so before Aonix has
>upgraded the Ada compiler to reflect the changes."

Ok, what improvements are we talking about that would require an upgrade
of the compiler ? Instead of adding/changing a spec file and an import
library ?

Does release evidence show that new features immediately show up in VC++,
the next month or so, or is there some lagging behind too ?

Are they sure that all the improvements they obviously foresee in NT are
actually needed/used ?

>"First it was Alsys, then Thomson, then Aonix.  Seems pretty unstable.
>I know MicroSoft will be around in 10 years.  How do I know this
>little Ada company will still be around?"

Well, first of all, Aonix is not the only game in town when it comes to
NT Ada compilers, there is at least GNAT to consider.

Portability between Ada compilers can be expected to be _a lot_ better
then between versions of the same C++ compiler...

How do they know MS might still be around 10 years from now ? Let alone
NT. And will this NT still resemble the current version ?

And for that matter, what is C++ going to look like in 10 years time ?
Will VC++ still be able to compile currently written software...

Look back 10 years, was this Ada compiler available back then ? (hint:
yes) and is the software written back then stil compile-able today ?.

>"Countless millions of dollars are being spent to develop tools, class
>libraries, etc., for use in NT development.  We won't be able to use
>them if we go with Ada.  The Ada market is too small to bother with
>for software development tool makers."

Why do they think that a lot of NT tools are not going to work with an
Ada system. Or do they mean C++ tools ?

If the latter, who is telling them a) you cannot use them from Ada, b)
that you will need them in Ada too, c) that there will not be specific
Ada NT tools too, d) that all these tools will be relevant.

>"Ada is like Betamax.  It may be technically superior, but it's on its
>way out.  Everyone is doing C++, and we'll be passed by if we go with
>Ada.  Ada is a dead-end."

1. Ada is not like Betamax since it is currently available on almost all
   relevant hardware platforms;

2. Yes, Ada is technically superior.

3. Where is the evidence that 'Ada is on its way out' ? All _facts_ I am
   aware of show the contrary.

4. Everyone is not doing C++. Everyone is doing Java (better use this
   then), Powerbuilder, Cobol, Excel, etc.

5. How are you going to be passed by using Ada ? In what sense ? Will
   C++ develop further into a better language than Ada, are they willing
   to spend the amount of money needed to keep abreast of all those
   changes ?

6. Business-wise Ada's advantages reflect on the bottom line, going with
   VC++ means spending a lot of money to stay current with whatever MS
   decides to do next.

>"Some of our outside customers will be maintaining the simulator
>software themselves.  They've heard how wonderful C++ is.  They won't
>want to buy a simulator programmed in Ada."

If these customers decided against a better produkt written in Ada
because they 'heard how wonderful C++ is', please send the names and
addresses, since I know a few other nice deals for them too...

>"We don't want to swim against the stream."

Right, and the company that builds its produkts just like all its
competitors do is the one that is going to capture the market...

>"Everyone's learning C++; no one's learning Ada.  We'll always have an
>easier time hiring C++ programmers than Ada programmers -- and they'll
>be cheaper too."

If no one is learning Ada95, then how do they explain the rapidly rising
number of books teaching Ada ?

Yes, there are more C++ programmers then Ada programmers. But are all
C++ programmers created equal ? (ever seen an experienced gpp programmer
wrestle with Visual Age ? <g>).

And are C++ programmers really cheaper then Ada programmers ? How did
they measure this ? Just salary ? Is that being business-wise or
foolishly believing that all other factors are equal ? For example,
might measuring productivity no show that over time Ada programmers are
actually cheaper than C++ programmers ? (hint: rational study)

>"C++ is the native language of the NT platform.  You have to write
>device drivers in C++."

Nope, the native language of NT is C, so are its device drivers. But
even if this were true, what relevance does this have for application
development ? Especially since Ada is interoperable with C (and GNAT:
C++), and the NT platform has dll's and such.

>"MicroSoft uses C++ for their development.  Don't you think they'd use
>Ada instead if it was really that much better?"

Do they really think NT and Win95 were written in 32-bit C++ ?. Sounds
like MS marketing is even better than I thought.

And remember that MS is going for the mass market, they have no concern
for quality, let alone that their customers will be maintaining MS
produkts.

A valid argument, if MS were selling simulators too, otherwise I do not
see the point.

>Anyone have any good __evidence__ that counters these arguments?  (And
>yes, I've been to www.adahome.com, but a lot of the info on commercial
>use of Ada appears to be pretty old.)

Yes, that's the result of the transition from '83 to '95. It is
being worked on as we speak :-).

Also note that, at least here in Europe, a number of companies that
are using Ada to their advantage don't want this fact to go public,
for fear of waking up the compition.

Good luck!

--

-- Jerry van Dijk       | Leiden, Holland
-- Business Consultant  | Team Ada
-- Ordina Finance       | jdijk@acm.org

Re: MicroSoft to purchase Aonix?

[Jon S Anthony]

In article <865101014.29snx@jvdsys.nextjk.stuyts.nl> jerry@jvdsys.nextjk.stuyts.nl (Jerry van Dijk) writes:

> 1. Ada is not like Betamax since it is currently available on almost all
>    relevant hardware platforms;

The primary reason why Ada is not like Betamax, is Ada is _not_ an
enduser "commodity" and Betamax is (was...)  This comparison is a
_category error_, and hence not just "wrong", but rather completely
meaningless in the context.

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com

Re: MicroSoft to purchase Aonix?

[Jerry van Dijk]

In article <JSA.97Jun2172640@alexandria> jsa@alexandria writes:
>
>In article <865101014.29snx@jvdsys.nextjk.stuyts.nl>> jerry@jvdsys.nextjk.stuyts.nl (Jerry van Dijk) writes:
>
>> 1. Ada is not like Betamax since it is currently available on almost all
>>    relevant hardware platforms;
>
>The primary reason why Ada is not like Betamax, is Ada is _not_ an
>enduser "commodity" and Betamax is (was...)  This comparison is a
>_category error_, and hence not just "wrong", but rather completely
>meaningless in the context.

That was the point, but I admit I was trying to be a bit too subtle :-)

-- Jerry van Dijk       | Leiden, Holland
-- Consultant           | Team Ada
-- Ordina Finance       | jdijk@acm.org

Re: MicroSoft to purchase Aonix?

[gilbert prine]

I don't really want to get into any flame wars with Mike D Bates in this
thread, because he probably will never use Ada and I sure wouldn't consider
using C++ rather than Ada in anything I do.

> "MicroSoft uses C++ for their development.  Don't you think they'd use
> Ada instead if it was really that much better?"

However this one point needs to be responded to.  Does Mike remember that
Windows 95 started out to be Windows 93?  Apparently Microsoft can survive
the major slips that C/C++ induces, but I sure can't.  For his sake I hope
he can too. :-(

Gil Prine

Re: MicroSoft to purchase Aonix?

[Mike D Bates]

In article <m0wXdg3-0002v5C@zot.allware.com>,
gilbert prine  <prine@ALLWARE.COM> wrote:
>I don't really want to get into any flame wars with Mike D Bates in this
>thread, because he probably will never use Ada and I sure wouldn't consider
>using C++ rather than Ada in anything I do.

Just to be clear, I never said that _I_ wouldn't use Ada.  I have used
it, I like it, and I think my company ought to use it.  Those who have
the final say in the matter disagree.  The material in quotes in my
original post reflects the thinking of those who have the final say.

>> "MicroSoft uses C++ for their development.  Don't you think they'd use
>> Ada instead if it was really that much better?"
>
>However this one point needs to be responded to.  Does Mike remember that
>Windows 95 started out to be Windows 93?  Apparently Microsoft can survive
>the major slips that C/C++ induces, but I sure can't.  For his sake I hope
>he can too. :-(

That's an excellent point.  If Microsoft can't produce software on
time using Microsoft's development tools, how will a smaller operation
manage?



-- 
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Section 227, any and
all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a
download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US.  E-mailing denotes
acceptance of these terms.