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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00, LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,be23df8e7e275d73 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-13 07:10:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Proving Correctness (was Java Portability) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 09:51:15 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9l8m0k$7kj$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9jrt62$38t$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B619A6D.5DD6E782@home.com> <3B6636BA.96FD8348@home.com> <9kb3ub$hdo$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <9kchn1$lng$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <9kea9a$lsc$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9keduf$qvc$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <9kelv1$riq$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <9klokd0nif@drn.newsguy.com> <3B706ADC.B4847AC3@home.com> <3B75C79C.38C670F2@home.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 997710676 7827 136.170.200.133 (13 Aug 2001 13:51:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Aug 2001 13:51:16 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11847 Date: 2001-08-13T13:51:16+00:00 List-Id: Well, the situation probably lies somewhere between the two extremes. If the software library we are talking about is fairly general-purpose in nature, this is one thing. If it addresses some narrow niche, then its another. I get the impression that we were talking about some semi-general-purpose library that would be distributed with a compiler. Something similar to the MFC - interfaces to the OS, graphics, data structures, etc. Notice that Microsoft didn't go to one or more customers and say "Please fund the development of this end product". (Of course at the size they are, there is a lot more capability to develop things like this on speculation.) If "Ada-Libraries-R-US" wanted to build a similar library of development tools - one that has a market beyond one company or even one compiler company - I don't think you'd find very many companies that would contract for its development and expect to pay the full development cost. Someone might partially fund it, realizing that a) they need it and b) there has to be some seed money to get it going and c) this ends up cheaper than doing it themselves. Even this, I think is doubtful and as evidence, I would observe that there are companies that would benefit from having such a library and there are any number of eager entrepeneurs, start-ups or existing hungry companies that would want to build such a thing. Yet no such relationship exists. Why? I think it is because most customers are not willing to totally or even partially fund a development of this kind. Its too risky & they have alternatives. Why pay all or some of the cost of developing a library in Ada if they can go to C++Compilers-R-Us and buy the whole thing for a fraction of what it costs to get it built from bottom-dead-center in Ada? Because then it would be in Ada? Why does a business care if it is in Ada, C++ or Lisp? They care about how it impacts the bottom line & (say) $50,000 to develop it in Ada vs $500 to buy it COTS in C++ has to be justified in those terms. Put yourself in the shoes of the customer (as I'm sure you are from time to time) and ask why it is you buy or don't buy some software product. When does your company out-source the development of any software? Why do they do it? What conditions are placed on it? What advantages do they get and what do they give up when they do this? These are the important questions to ask if we want to understand why/why-not some company would want to fund the development of an Ada library of some sort. BTW: My experience has been that very few companies ever outsource custom software development of any kind. (By this I mean contracting with an outside company to build something they want that they can't get off-the-shelf. Not the business of hiring consultants or other indirect labor to work on it in-house.) Why is that? I can speculate, but perhaps its more valuable to get the speculation of others. 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/ "Larry Elmore" wrote in message news:3B75C79C.38C670F2@home.com... > > I think your TV example was flawed because developing a software library > has nowhere near the risk if the company you're dealing with has a good > track record, and nothing has happened to it recently that might affect > its ability to carry out the job. Software libraries can also usually be > used in a restricted fashion long before they're complete, which is a > far different situation than a factory, which must be functionally > complete before it does anything useful. >