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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!encore!pierson From: pierson@encore.com (Dan L. Pierson) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: You get what you pay for (not true in software) Message-ID: Date: 21 Jun 91 14:59:19 GMT References: <"13-Jun-91.14:53:27.EDT".*.Martin_A._Leisner.Henr801C@Xerox.com> <2356@raybed2.msd.ray.com> Sender: news@Encore.COM Organization: Encore Computer Corporation Nntp-Posting-Host: xenna.encore.com In-reply-to: rgc@raybed2.msd.ray.com's message of 20 Jun 91 13:50:29 GMT List-Id: In article <2356@raybed2.msd.ray.com> rgc@raybed2.msd.ray.com (RICK CARLE) writes: It was the right decision for its time. Perhaps now the situation has changed a little. Compilers are plentiful, but they're too expensive for many universities. Maybe now is the right time to revisit the concept of a DoD-sponsored cheap compiler. Sponsor a competitive procurement for inexpensive Ada compilers to host on easily available college computers: PCs & Macs. ... There may be a cheaper and more productive alternative to yet another heavily government financed boondoggle. Current DoD validation requirements have the effect of prohibiting free or even cheap validated compilers because the validation costs can only be born by relatively large organizations that charge large prices*. Could a combination of subsidized validation for a few free or low cost compilers and maybe a small amount of carefully selected grants help produce the cheap Ada compilers that universities and private students need? *I get the feeling from comments about the value of "real commercial compilers" that some people in this group believe that this is a feature :-(. Maybe this view is logical if you believe that only "real software developers" should use Ada and that "real software development" can only take place in large, well funded organizations. I think that such attitudes run directly contrary to the history of economic growth and innovation in the USA; most real growth and innovation come from small groups, mostly small businesses. Making Ada effectively unavailable to such groups is helpful neither to the groups nor to our software industry as a whole. Aside: It's rather odd to find myself, an Ada opponent, supporting the language this way. But its basic design is much better than the main alternative, C, and we badly need to move most of our work from C to real high level languages just as we finally moved from assembly to C quite a while ago. It's a real (expensive!) pity that none of the language with most of Ada's advantages but without its bulk and misfeatures seem to have a chance. -- dan In real life: Dan Pierson, Encore Computer Corporation, Research UUCP: {talcott,linus,necis,decvax}!encore!pierson Internet: pierson@encore.com