From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)
Subject: Re: Reasons NOT To Choose Ada
Date: 1996/12/06
Date: 1996-12-06T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <JSA.96Dec5213408@alexandria> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 32872161.19FE@eurocontrol.fr
In article <1996Dec4.190401.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
> In article <dmiller-0412961436470001@ind-0010-27.iquest.net>, dmiller@cybo.com (Dana Miller) writes:
> > In article <57vknm$r3c@news.structured.net>, cts@alpinet.com (Craig
> > Spannring) wrote:
>
> >> You might want to check out Object Ada from Thompson. They have some
> >> sort of visual layout program in their professional edition. I
> >> haven't tried it out since I'm being paid to do C++ and $595 is a bit
> >> steep for a toy to use at home.
> >
> > MS VC++ is ~$600 and CodeWarior for the Mac is ~$400
>
> Unless it is very well hidden, Codewarrior does not include a visual
> layout program. AppMaker from Bowers does an excellent job and will
> interoperate with CodeWarrior (Pascal or C*), but the total price is
> then up to the $600 level. I don't consider that horrible, but it
> is not particularly lower than ObjectAda for Windows on Intel.
Another point worth mentioning in this context is that the $595 price
for ObjectAda is for the _professional_ version (even includes
ClearCase CMS for crying out loud). The _personal_ version (which
doesn't look too toy like either) is $245. As pointed out below, to
get a _professional_ level MSVC++ is over the $1000.00 mark (last I
looked) - and I _believe_ the compiler is the same piece of rubbish as
what you get for the $600.00.
> > The Professional or Enterprise versions of MSVB or MSVC++ are closer to
> > four figures than two. Iwas just looking at the prices for MS software
> > all across the board. WOW they are EXPENSIVE!! The alsys^h^h^h^h^h
> > Thompson compiler is a good deal when you considder the cost of adding
> > bounds checker $??? and possibly several other checkers $??? needed to do
> > what Ada does out of the box. Not a bad deal. The other advantage of the
> > Thompson product is that the definition of Ada95 is not as likely to
> > change over the next year as C++ is (was) and force you to keep buying new
> > compilers from MS or Borland.
>
> Yes, rather than torture programmers with frequent language changes
> the Ada community prefers to torture purchasing agents with frequent
> company and product name changes. ObjectAda is now from a company
> called Aonix. Formerly Thomson. Former Alsys.
Yeah, really! Criminey, I was just getting used to "Thomson"...
/Jon
--
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1996-12-06 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <E0Mo5L.n2E@atf.cmg.nl>
1996-11-10 0:00 ` Reasons NOT To Choose Ada Smith A. Cat
1996-11-11 0:00 ` Steve Jones - JON
1996-11-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-11-11 0:00 ` Scott McCoy
1996-11-13 0:00 ` Corey Minyard
1996-11-13 0:00 ` Brendan WALKER
1996-11-13 0:00 ` Reasons NOT To Choose Ada (NOT!) Dirk Dickmanns
1996-12-02 0:00 ` Reasons NOT To Choose Ada Craig Spannring
1996-12-04 0:00 ` Dana Miller
1996-12-05 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1996-12-06 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony [this message]
1996-12-06 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1996-12-09 0:00 ` Craig Spannring
1996-12-10 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1996-12-11 0:00 ` Dave Wood
1996-12-20 0:00 ` Ted Dennison
[not found] ` <01bbd2c9$f8707680$14080c26@cat>
1996-11-15 0:00 ` Vincent Celier
1996-11-16 0:00 ` Geert Bosch
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox