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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7bcba1db9ed24fa7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-16 11:26:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.sttls1.wa.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Mark Lundquist" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3B460DA9.C2965042@ix.netcom.com> <9ff447f2.0107061757.34ca0723@posting.google.com> <3B475678.C582735D@worldnet.att.net> <3b478165_3@news3.prserv.net> <3b48d207_1@news3.prserv.net> <3B51DD8A.9FBCA84F@ix.netcom.com> <9iv1pd$3va$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <2$l9ZPZiDd4x@eisner.encompasserve.org> Subject: Re: is ada dead? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:26:57 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.248.56.237 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.sttls1.wa.home.com 995308017 24.248.56.237 (Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:26:57 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:26:57 PDT Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10011 Date: 2001-07-16T18:26:57+00:00 List-Id: "Larry Kilgallen" wrote in message news:2$l9ZPZiDd4x@eisner.encompasserve.org... > In article <9iv1pd$3va$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, "Marin David Condic" writes: > > One of the things that would go a long way to countering the misinformation > > and overcoming the objections about tools, etc, would be to have an > > inexpensive development toolkit sitting on the shelf next to the C++ > > environments with equivalent & better features at a competitive price. > > But there is not one C compiler, there are many. > > That brings up another problem Ada faces, a lack of competition. Hmmm.... Exclude for the time being the niche players in the C market, e.g. compilers targeting microcontrollers, vectorizing compilers etc... For the broad market, virtually every C compiler supplier is a platform vendor. So while there are many C compilers, there are no C compiler companies. So do these compilers really compete against each other? How many platform adoption decisions are driven by competetive factors relating to C compilers? None! And I'll bet that even extends to IDE factors, e.g. when Windows is chosen over Unix or MacOS, Visual Studio is *not* part of the reason (even if VS is really great -- I'm not saying this is because it's bad). So I would argue that if lack of competition is an issue, comparisons with the C market don't illustrate it... Also, someday there really may be just one C compiler! :-) It's possible that the platform vendors will all switch to gcc as their "next generation" compilers. (Of course this is subject to the broader question of whether the platform builders will move future OS investment to Linux, since ISV support for 3rd-tier OS's has dried up. A platform vendor cannot survive without an application base). > Advocates are happy just to get one compiler for an environment, > but there is never the competition that gets one vendor trying to > outdo the other in features desired by the customer base. > No, but if there were a single Ada supplier, if they were giving me what I want I'd be happy whether or not they were motivated to outdo another Ada vendor... Of course the motivation has to come from competition against something, and in this case that something is all the other languages! That is, even a single supplier has to be responsive to the market, unless it is a captive market. A single Ada vendor will die if they blow off their customers/prospects, just as surely as will a vendor operating in a more obviously "competetive" market. If they don't want to die, they'll continue to be innovative and responsive. > I believe that is also a shortcoming of Freeware, GPL, etc. > Supporters are inclined to rally around the (single) flag > than try to do something with broader appeal to the public. I'd argue that that in the open source space, incremental improvements are rightly seen to be more cost-effective as subjects of "incorporation" rather than "differentiation". -- Mark