Re: Ada student homework ?

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>]

In article <3A0FCBAD.824095C6@cadwin.com>,
  Nicolas Brunot <n.brunot@cadwin.com> wrote:
> Bugatti or Ferrari owners use those cars as toys for the rich
> adult people they are, and certainly not as tools, they have 3
> or 4 others
> cars much more satisfying for daily use, and they know that.
> Your comparison is quite explanatory about your concept of
developping
> software

Oh dear oh dear oh dear! :-)

No, you miss my point entirely, I am not talking about car
collectors who collect Bugatti's today (there are after all
only four roadsters left I believe). There was a past tense
in there that I guess you missed.

At the time that the Bugatti's were developed they most
certainly WERE transportation tools and very effective
ones, far more important than the Fords of the day, but
far more expensive. Now of course, both are collectors
items, though indeed one would prefer to have the former
in your collection.

So, since that example confused you, let's take a modern
example, and compare the BMW with a Ford Pinto. I choose
the latter example deliberately, since it was indeed
seriously unreliable, and the manufacturer knew it, but
did not care. But it was cheap!

> than by the normal user who is not
> interested in computers and asks for just a tool and is
> concerned about its cost .

Cost is a legitimate concern -- sometimes -- but not always.
Ask people if they would accept less reliable software in
a Boeing 777 in return for a $3 discount on their ticket ...

> Don't make a fixation on Microsoft, what it's true for them is
> also true for all software companies.

Not at all, please ... this shows a remarkable narrowness on
your part. Indeed I would be surprised if this attitude was
not a serious component in some software companies failing.

You have to understand your market. The quick-to-market, cheap,
doesn't-really-matter-if-it-is-reliable school of software
production may be appropriate for some situations, but it
is definitely NOT for all. The folks who made the original
software for the luggage system at the new Denver airport
for example found that out, as did Ebay, when failures
in their software system caused a four *BILLION* dollar
loss in the value of the company.

... and shows that you are far more concerned by the fame and
> proudness of the developper

Ah, there you are very wrong. I am very strongly opposed
to the notion of individual fame and pride when it comes
to software. There is a reason why you don't find any
authors names anywhere in the GNAT code :-)

> We don't pay taxes in the same country, but you are right.
> People want reliable software developped by smart people, but
> they also want them easy to find, easy to use and cheap.

Well cheap and reliable are opposing goals at some level, you
have to decide where you want to be on the spectrum. Different
projects require different choices, but making the wrong choice
can kill you (and indeed many software companies have died from
making the wrong choice).

> If you cannot (don't want) provide that on Windows, first you
> have to develop a new OS better cheaper and easier to use and
> find than Windows.

Not all software runs on Windows -- perhaps that fact has
escaped you :-)

> After that you have to impose it on the market.
> And then only after, get rid of Windows.

Palm has done a pretty good job of getting rid of Windows in
the hand held area, an area where indeed Microsoft did not
pay attention to easy-to-use.

> Otherwise you are going to develop wonderful software you are
> very proud of, but unfortunetaly, users are also looking for
> software working well for the PCs they own and won't buy yours
> softs, even if you tell them :
> "You stupid should know that if you are not satisfied, it's
Microsoft
> fault, not mine .."

Could this be auto-biographical? :-)


> I have no strange devices on my PC (home or professional ..)
> and use them only as tools.
> I don't find it crashes su much

Yes well not crashing "so much" is a reasonable criterion
in the Windows world, but in the world of reliable
operating systems (e.g. OS/2) crashes are rare or non-existant
no matter what you are doing. Now not everyone needs this
reliability, but it is not suprising that OS/2 tends to be
the OS of choice for PC driven ATM's over windows for example.

>  when you don't play too much
> with it and
> do not act like someone who would every day try to change
something in
> his car's engine.

Yes, well it is always instructive when Windows fans tell
us that you have to treat it very gently to avoid blowing
it up. That's certainly what we find (indeed even NT and
Win2K are very delicate, we only manage to get semi-reliable
GNAT builds by avoiding running anything else at the same
time).

> > one of the most remarkable bugs of all time was the bug in
Windows
> > 95 that caused it to realiable crash after a few days, but
no
> > one noticed, because this crash just appeared to be normal
> > operation in the unlikely event that you could keep your
> > Windows 95 machine running that long.
>
> I saw such behavior in Gnat :-)

Er .. I think you miss the point I made, I am not just pointing
to some arbitrary bug in Windows, but to one that RELIABLY
would strike ANY user who kept their system up for a few days.
I cannot IMAGINE using my OS/2 system if it crashed every
few days, I expect to be able to keep it up for weeks at a
time, and only ever reboot when *I* want to (e.g. when I
needed to reboot to Windows for some odd thing that I can't
do in OS/2).

> but of course gnat blames it's not
> its fault ... which everybody is doing.

Well I don't know what you are talking about here, since you
are not one of our customers ...

> I you are not the standard Windows is, you must be satisfying
> with Windows bugs, not blame them. It's your problem, not the
> user's one.

Sorry, the random non-english here has defeated my attempts
to understand what you mean here.

> > But Ada, and the philosophy that surrounds Ada *can* be
> > significant aids in achieving realiability.

> Because you make religious opinion about Ada more important
> than reliability and efficiency.

Er, I think there may be another language problem here. My
statement that Ada can be a significant aid is a bit shot
of a religeous opinion (perhaps you should look up significant
and aid in an english dictionary -- they do not mean panacea!)

> Pushing Ada is not exactly a success until now ....

Not if you think the only measure of success is writing
commodity programs for Windows.

> That should make you ask yourself some questions, and ask
> yourself if by chance, users wouldn't be looking for Ford cars
> instead of Bugatti cars.

Well of course users are not looking for antique cars, sorry
I confused you by setting an example in the past. But updated
to the present, yes, relatively few users are looking for
BMW's, and far more users are looking for Fords, but do you
*really* think that is a legitimate argument that BMW should
start making commodity cars -- I don't think so!

> They dream about Bugatti, but even when they have one, they
> often ride Ford ...

You may be in a software industry where your success (assuming
you are in fact successful) depends on generating cheap
commodity Windows software. That's fine, but it is not the
main niche for Ada at the moment. To me it seems that Ada is
being quite successful in the area where it can most likely
play a role -- namely large high reliability systems. Could
it be even more successful there, sure ...

But all I am saying in my message is that if you sole criterion
for success is mass market penetration in the Windows context,
then I think you will be disappointed that Ada will not succeed
here, but I won't be any more disappointed by that than the
CEO of BMW is disappointed in seeing that FOrd sells more cars


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.