Re: Ada used in General Aviation (GA) applications?

[rleif@rleif.com (Robert C. Leif)]

The US DoD has one major technology transfer success. They are
extremely capable of dropping a bomb on someone. Unfortunately, this
very limited success does NOT appear to benefit the US economy. In
fact, part of the Clinton boom was the result of the transfer of some
very bright creative individuals from military to civilian
entrepreneurial projects. The Ada paradox is that the Ada marketing
capability is inversely proportional to the Ada technology capability.

For 2004 we will have support from Microsoft of SIGAda, which is
wonderful. Unfortunately, we have minimal support for creation of
real-time code with Microsoft operating systems, particularly Windows
CE and embedded XP.  One of the great strengths of Ada is low level
coding.  At Microsoft's own embedded show in San Diego, their experts
could not tell me how to write code for a board!  A# has reached the
feasibility stage.  Unfortunately, it is an academic exercise and not
a commercial product. It has demonstrated that existing J code
production software can be modified to produce the ECMA intermediate
language.  Languages with much smaller markets than Ada have now been
hosted to produce ECMA code and operate under Microsoft Visual Studio.
 One should compile directly to the Microsoft intermediate language
and then use the Microsoft tools to run on all of the major
microprocessors. If for some reason, a microprocessor does not work
with Microsoft tools, a language independent product that permits
Microsoft tools to be used with that processor should be developed.
This language independent tool should have a better return on capital
than retargeting an Ada compiler.

Two old proverbs are relevant: 1) If you can not beat them join them.
2) Render unto Bill Gates (Caesar) what is Bill Gates'.

As far as work on other languages, I agree that the Ada compiler
vendors have undercut their own products. Gucci does not sell to
Walmart. However, there is one market where they should be competing,
XML.  XML is parallel to Ada and does not compete. It also a larger
market than that for compilers. I use XMLSpy to validate XML schemas. 
The error messages from GNAT are orders of magnitude better.  An Ada
XForms generator would be competitive. An XForms generator that is a
plug-in for Word could be very profitable. Even, an Ada plug-in for
Xforms would be a useful product.

As far as commercialization is concerned, ASIS provides the capability
of creating tools to divide up the royalties on software.  This would
permit the development of for profit, commercial, sources available
software, which is the logical evolutionary step beyond "Free
Software".

Bob Leif
 

"Richard  Riehle" <adaworks@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<tVdoc.16693$V97.6543@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> Ada compiler publishers have been dwelling in the DoD world for such
> a long time that any tendency toward entrepreneurialism has vanished.
> I talked to one DoD contractor's management a few years ago and
> suggested they had an opportunity to enter a marketplace (not with
> Ada, but other skills) and become successful in that market.  Their
> response, "But who is going to fund it?"
> 
> There is a risk associated with any new venture.   Entrepreneurs tend
> to be driven by their vision, their dedication to that vision, and their
> unwavering confidence that it is a vision with commercial value.  At
> one time, before the wimps took charge, Aonix seemed almost ready
> to pursue that kind of vision.
> 
> Among those who have grown up in the DoD contracting world, courage
> seems in short supply.  Some of the people who build tools for Ada
> don't use their own Ada compilers and tools for building their other
> products.    I don't need to identify those companies.  They know who
> they are.  However, they don't have a sense of how ashamed they
> should be of their lack of vision, lack of courage, and lack of
> entrepreneurial will.
> 
> "We will only build a product if someone asks for it," is not a particularly
> good business strategy.   One can keep a company alive, for a while, using
> that strategy, but it is not a sustainable posture.   Entrepreneurs are
> constantly
> trying to find new markets, not simply cling to existing ones.
> 
> There have been a few examples of risk takers in the Ada industry.  RR
> Software comes to mind.  Meridian comes to mind.   OC Systems.
> There are a few others.  The fact that these have not been a resounding
> success has acted as a deterrent for others.   One of the companies that
> had a chance to make Ada popular, Rational, flubbed that opportunity.
> I don't know if it was inept management,  lack of courage, or just being
> too busy to put any energy into seeking commercial success for Ada.
> Whatever it was, the language product that got them started, Ada,
> seems to have vanished from Rational's main marketing thrust.
> 
> The only companies that actively and energetically market their Ada
> products, at present, seem to be ACT and DDC-I.  Every month,
> I get a newsletter from DDC-I that updates me on what they are
> doing, customer news, product news, and even a little column by
> a guest writer.  No other Ada compiler publisher takes the trouble
> to do anything like that.   If you want to be on their distribution, I
> suggest you send  them an email.  They are quite easy to deal
> with on such matters.
> 
> Marin is correct when he suggests that the only way to make Ada
> successful is for people to being creating products that use it.  We
> can whine about the fact that more people are not choosing it, we
> can complain about the stupidity of the LM management on JSF,
> we can wring our hands about the downside of abrogating the
> mandate.   None of that is worth much.    What is worth a lot
> is for those who know and love Ada to build commercial products
> using it.  Sell your shrink-wrapped Ada application to the general
> marketplace.  Let people know you used Ada for development.
> Once we have those kind of successes, Ada can stand on its own
> and will be recognized for the value it actually provides.
> 
> Richard Riehle