Re: Proving Correctness (was Java Portability)

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

"David Starner" <dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org> wrote in message
news:tn0jksmu38rs36@corp.supernews.com...
> If it was done under an open source license, ACT might add it to both the
> private and public releases of GNAT, and it would be included in at least
> one operating system (Debian) as soon as possible. If it's done under the
> ADCL, ACT won't add it to the public release, and I seriously doubt it
would
> add it to the private releases (ACT has shown reluctance to pass costs
onto
> their customers, as shown by them no longer using cygwin), and I don't
know
> of any OS vendors who would jump to include it.
>
Are you speaking for ACT?

I'd suspect that there will likely be a limited range of choices: 1) The
compiler vendors fund some sort of joint development of a semi-standard set
of libraries. 2) Somebody develops a set of libraries as a business venture
that gain some popularity and becomes a de facto standard. 3) Some good
hearted soul(s)develops some libraries and release them at no charge and
they become a de facto standard.

Options 1 & 2 start getting evaluated as business ventures and maybe they
happen and maybe they don't depending on if someone thinks there is profit
to be made. If it looks profitable, they put effort into enhancements,
maintenance, support, advertising, marketing, etc. Option 3 has happened on
a number of occasions - there are dozens of libraries out there filled with
useful or semi-useful Ada code. (And before you pick on me for being a
greedy capitalist, I've contributed some to that body of free stuff.) But
because there is no money in it and we all have day jobs, there isn't much
effort put into improving or promoting the products. Proof? They've been
around for some time now and I don't see them sitting in a distribution of
anyone's compiler. (I'd be glad if you could prove me wrong on that score.)


>
> I find that somewhat insulting; there are 400 Debian developers (including
> me) who are putting together an operating system for no monetary
> compensation, and I can tell you that few of us are saints.
>
Well don't presume I meant to call you a fool. Presume I meant to call you a
saint.


> Frankly, not everyone values monetary compensation as much as you do. I
have
> enough money and quasi-monetary resources to keep me feed, clothed and in
> college for the next year, with a little money for computer and
roleplaying
> junk on the side. I don't need money; I'm looking peer respect and
> intellectual stimulation. Personally, the money coming from the ADCL would
> have too much legal complexity to be worth anything; you'd need to get an
> accountant or lawyer involved to handle anything. If thousands were coming
> in, it might be worth it, but I rather bet on "Make Money Fast" schemes.
>
What you decide to do with your spare time is your business. If you get a
kick out of developing software and putting it out for others to use, fine.
Remember, I've done the same. But I'll bet you wouldn't go buy all the
equipment needed, rent office space, work 40 hours a week (or more) at it,
(day in and day out for a period of ??? years?) fund some advertising and
marketing for it, etc. all out of some sense of charity. Not unless you were
just independently wealthy and liked to tilt at windmills. As a result,
there aren't a huge supply of folks beating down the doors begging ACT,
Aonix, Rational, Averstar, et alia, if they could *please* work for them for
free developing a collection of Ada libraries. (If there are, maybe they
could direct the extras over to my house where they can mow my lawn. :-)


>
> IMO, the ADCL would be an overall negative incentive; it would drive away
> any open-source people who would work on it, and attract very few people
who
> care about money (who probably figure it the same way I do; there's a
small
> chance of this being worth anything, so going into expecting to get enough
> money to pay for my time is stupid.)
>
Well, maybe it makes some money and maybe it doesn't. Maybe it only makes
$20 or maybe it makes $1,000,000. Nobody knows at this juncture since it
hasn't been tried. What I am reasonably sure of is that if I were to put a
bunch of code out under the GPL (or some variant that doesn't retain any
financial remuneration) that it will basically make nothing for me in terms
of money. (O.K. I get that warm fuzzy feeling all over. Thanks.) But there's
a reasonable chance that *someone* is going to make money off of it - it
just won't be me.

If I'm going to put the software out there anyway, why not reserve some
limited right to earn something from it? It would still be out there with
source code available for all the hackers and students and garage-start-ups
and big corporations to use at no charge. They're still getting that same
"free ride" they'd get with GPLed code, right? But if someone goes out and
turns it into a product, the authors aren't left out in the cold without so
much as a thank-you note.


> Sometimes things just don't come together right; the world of programming
is
> littered with dead projects. If someone wants to get together another try
> (or restart an old one) under a reasonable licenes (XFree or GNAT-modified
> GPL - something with few strings attached), I'm willing to work on it.
Maybe
> this time it will work; maybe it won't. I don't think using the ADCL will
> affect that positively.
>
Well, I think one of the reasons that the last effort to build a library
collapsed was that nobody owned the project and nobody saw their own
interest being directly benefited by working on it sufficiently to make it
worth pressing hard to get it done. Maybe I'm wrong on this score, but I
think if someone saw a personal need being fulfilled or some gain to be had,
there would have been more direction and more pressure to produce something.
(Maybe there were just too many people involved as well. Lots of things go
wrong.)

My guess is that the compiler vendors could spur something along because
they have an interest in such a facility. If they formed up some sort of
committee and agreed on some requirements & scope, at least someone (or some
group) would have a clear direction to go in and a ready community of
customers. It might get developed as another open source freebie or it might
get built "on spec" - but it would more likely get built if someone has a
vested interest to persue or protect. Don't forget that this is where a lot
of the "volunteer" labor comes from in groups like SIGAda - some businesses
think they have a vested interest in supporting the language, the standards,
the end products of working groups, the info/knowledge obtained at trade
shows, etc. As a result they send folks to these gigs and pay their salaries
and plane fair and hotels and let them have time to do the work needed. They
aren't doing it because it gives them warm fuzzy feelings! :-)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/