Re: Ada generics are bad

[nabbasi@earthlink.net]

In article <matthew_heaney-ya023680001304980058230001@news.ni.net>,
matthew_heaney@acm.org says...

>Somehow, when I buy a car, Toyota sells me...a car!  And when a buy a
>microwave oven, Sears sells me...a microwave oven!  How do Toyota and Sears
>even manage to stay in business at all, giving away all that technology
>that the world can see and copy?
>

this is a good point. but software is different. copying a car engine by
just looking at it without having access to the design and the engineering
calculations that went behind building the engine is very hard. 
while in software, if one release the source code,  the "engineering" and 
the "caluclations" are sent out with the product itself. one can find
everything they want by examining the code. offcourse design docs whould
make it much easier to figure what the code is doing, but they are not
that neccessary for someone who wants to find how it works. 

Also, more important is that copying software is MUCH easier than 
copying a car engine. with software you just
make copies of it ! but with car engines, you have to build a plant, and hire
pepole and engineers, etc.. it is much more expensive, even if you know HOW
it is build, you can not build it as easily without lots of money, not the
case with making copies of software if you have the code.

having said this, it is not uncommon for car manufacturares such as GM, ford,
etc.. to buy a new car model that was just released by another compnay,  
take it to their plant, and disassemble it piece by piece, to find out 
how it was build, and to learn about how the competition builds its products. 


>Here's a hint: a mature software development shop owns a process, not
>software.  Software is merely the output of the process.  Just like the
>manufacturing line at Toyota.  Or Sony. Or Motorola. Or any other
>manufacturer of material goods.
>

true.

>Motorola's asset isn't CPU cards, it's a six-sigma process.  Imagine that,
>letting me see the actual hardware inside my Mac!  But heaven forbid anyone
>should get a look at my source code!
>

again. source code is different. Motorola whill let you see the chip, but
ask them for the software that designed the chip, will they give it to you?
offcourse no. because the competition will find out how Motorola designs
the chips from the inside out. 


>Or compare Microsoft and the Free Software Foundation.  Who would you
>rather write software for you: Bill Gates, or Richard Stallman?
>

Richard offcourse ! (just because my NT just froze on me again).

>The software world is changing, Chris.  Why not change with it?

But lets be realistic here. as long as there are companies who work for
profit, there will always be companies who will guard the source code they
develop. to remove this protection, you have to remove the need for companies
to make profit out of software. it is the America dream, to make money, and
make more money, isn't? :)  

Nasser