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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, TO_NO_BRKTS_PCNT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7961088baf0e34d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93" Subject: Re: AIA Position on Ada Date: 1996/08/26 Message-ID: <96082613170017@psavax.pwfl.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 176735041 sender: Ada programming language comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU x-vms-to: SMTP%"INFO-ADA@VM1.NODAK.EDU" newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-vms-cc: CONDIC Date: 1996-08-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Brian Rogoff writes: >Well, that little chestnut ("There's more C stuff out there...") can be >expanded quite a bit > >(1) There is a larger existing base of C code than Ada code >(2) There are more tools for C than for Ada >(3) There are more programmers familiar with C than with Ada >etc. > No dispute with this. There are lots of expansions of my loosely used term: "stuff" and it clearly has to include things like experienced personnel, infrastructure, etc. >I believe that what is going on is an example of positive feedback in a >control system. Once a technology is a bit more popular than a competing >technology, its popularity becomes the reason that people choose it over its >competitors. Hence time to market is usually more important than quality, > I like the "positive feedback" analogy - I think it explains a lot. I think the thing to remember is that this is not necessarily a bad thing. Businesses exist to make money, not promote a specific technology. Hence when the costs of a technology come down because of volume, there's less interest in it's technical merit and more in it's ability to get the job out the door at the minimal cost. In other words: Who cares if it makes the engineers "happy" or not? Does it make the stockholders money? >important. Also, arguments like "VMS was better than UNIX" are plain wrong. >The Symbolics Lisp machine environment circa 1985 was arguably better than >any OS of the time, yet it didn't run on any other hardware. UNIX is >portable, VMS isn't. Too fucking bad for VMS and Symbolics. Similar arguments >can be made for the Mac (expensive, closed, yet functional and elegant) > I'll disagree on this point: VMS is a better OS than UNIX and that's a fact. The Symbolics Lisp machine may have been better than VMS, but it doesn't change my original statement. The fact that VMS didn't catch on as well as UNIX is due to a lot of factors, not the least of which is that DEC made it so proprietary. But it still illustrates my point about how technological superiority isn't always (or often) necessary to becoming the dominant technology. BTW: If any of you guys at DEC, IBM, Apple, et alia, are listening, now's the time to PAY ATTENTION: _EVERY_ time you've decided to lock up your hardware or software as "Proprietary" and "Closed" with the hopes of "Cornering The Market", you eventually _LOOSE_!!! (You get 100% of an ever shrinking pie). Whenever you guys build a system that's "Open" so that other companies or individuals can play in the same game, you _WIN_!!! (You get X% of an ever expanding pie.) Does it take a rocket scientist to figure it out? (And if it did, well... we just so happen to have one handy. ;-) MDC Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer ATT: 407.796.8997 M/S 731-96 Technet: 796.8997 Pratt & Whitney, GESP Fax: 407.796.4669 P.O. Box 109600 Internet: CONDICMA@PWFL.COM West Palm Beach, FL 33410-9600 Internet: CONDIC@FLINET.COM =============================================================================== "That which belongs to another." -- Diogenes, when asked what wine he liked to drink. ===============================================================================