comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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





  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