From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_50,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 19 Jun 93 00:28:07 GMT From: world!srctran@uunet.uu.net (Gregory Aharonian) Subject: Re: Ada Reuse libraries Message-ID: List-Id: > Asset Source for Software Engineering Technology (ASSET). > >ASSET (Asset Source for Software Engineering Technology) is a software >reuse library and reuse information exchange available to software >developers in government, industry, and education. ASSET is sponsored >by ARPA's STARS (Software Technology for Adaptable, Reliable Systems) >Program to serve as a national resource for the advancement of software >reuse across the DoD. The ASSET library, located in Morgantown, WV, is >connected to INTERNET allowing world-wide access to reusable software >assets. > ....[most stuff about what ASSET offers].... A millimicro kudo to ASSET. After two years of funding, and hundreds of thousands of dollars, they finally figured out what USENET is and broadcast an announcement on comp.lang.ada. I heard they were going to also list the titles to the components in their database, but someone realized it would be real embarassing to do so. It's a shame they figured this out just as they overan their budgets with extravagent and costly support services (like providing free 800 service dialup to their computers for users). How long would that last if they were creating ASSET with their own money? Even quantum physicists can't measure transitions that quick. It's funny, how totally unrealistic the business plans of ASSET are. Case in point. A few months ago, I recieved a letter from Chuck Lillie of ASSET (with a copy cc'ed to John Foreman) soliciting contributions of information on reusable software for ASSET's repositories (if you subtract out the stuff they recieved from the NRL STARS Ada collection, C stuff from the Free Software Foundation, and alot of documents, there is nothing much left in ASSET). Like most bureacratic operations, there were three pages of schemas on how I had to describe my components for submission to ASSET. One schema was actually about the component, and surprise surprise, there is no field for the cost of the component, something that wouldn't occur to a socialist bureacrat. I am supposed to go through tremendous effort in preparing information for ASSET, and not be able to include information on the most important aspect to a businessman, cost? Since the staff at ASSET never had to sell a component before, it wouldn't occur to them to include such a field. Even worse, there were other fields that software reuse business people need to actually sell a component that were not included in ASSET's schema. And from materials others have sent me describing what ASSET has, it appears that the ASSET staff has no clue on how to locate reusable Ada software. As a measure, my collection of information on reusable software not of DoD origin is larger than their entire collection. And Rick Conn makes these guys look silly with his volunteer effort that is orders more effective. Yet meanwhile the ASSET staff and John Foreman are quoted all over the place about how much they want to help business people who have software reuse businesses: "...To provide an electronic marketplace for reusable software products...." Well guys, what you are doing helps no one. It does not reflect the knowledge of people who have actually run software reuse businesses, and have to close sales to earn their money. Now some of you are saying, "fine Greg, we agree that ASSET is a waste of money and the whole operation could be replaced by one college student with a CDROM printer. But shouldn't you try helping these guys first before you air their dirty laundry. At least then you would be justified in spleening them all over the Internet". Considering they have all of the money, and I don't, why I should be their big brother? But it is a nice idea to help. I had it three years ago (near the end of my nice phase when I was loosing all of my money). There was a conference at SEI on the economics of software reuse. I went there, sat on the management session chaired by Chuck Lillie and suggested all kinds of great things about how to make Ada reuse work. Got a lot of compliments on my directory (in fact, Chuck asked everyone in our group to take one of my brochures back with them - no orders though), as well as my suggestions on how to make software reuse work (like adding a clause to RFPs requiring lists of reusable software). Met John Foreman too, gave me a nice tour of the SEI facilities - great plush rugs. So you would figure that when these guys got to ASSET, someone would call and find out how I did with my own money what these guys are trying to do with taxpayers money, especially after I phoned a few times offering some free advice as a teaser for contract work when they started operations. Again, being polite and working the channels got me absolutely no response - I guess cost-effective software reuse operations is not in their agenda. For a while I didn't care, since I have seen more DoD software reuse efforts come and go when their funding was cut off, and figured eventually Senator Byrd would be out of office and ASSET's funding stopped. But lately with this letter from Chuckie making absolutely no business sense, with extravagant customer support services for customers paying nothing, with fancy brochures describing consulting services that compete directly with me and others, with no attempts to use technologies like CDROMs to really help promote software reuse inside the DoD, all the while seeing ASSET praised to the hilt in the press and STARS Newsletters (though admittedly no one takes the newsletter seriously), it just got to be too much. I tried to be nice, and didn't even get a form letter of rejection. But you might counter, "Greg they are learning, albeit slowly. For example, the RIGaMORTIS reuse interoperability group which ASSET helps run has now put a cost field into their schema for components. Doesn't that show good business sense?" Close, but no cigar (tobacco or candy). For if RIGaMORTIS had sought the advice of real software reuse businessmen, they would have found out that a one component field for component cost is as useless as no fields for cost. For example, I have about 5000 technical reports in my database that include source code listings (I just received from an Air Force unit a nice computer aided tutorial simulating air to air combat - quite nice, written in Ada with 3D graphics on a PC - which is a tremendous feat if you actually try doing this). Now suppose someone wanted me to supply them with this package of components. What would the cost be? Well it depends. I could charge them for the cost of the technical report itself (about $20 to $50 depending on length), plus any amount less than what it would cost them to recreate the program from scratch (about $60,000 in this case for a few man years of effort). I could charge them to type in the code and make sure it is compilable - either a fixed fee or per-line-of-code fee. I can charge them to translate it to another language (usually the requests are for C/C++). I could charge them to enhance the combat simulations algorithms by using other packages in my database. Then I could alter my charges depending on the size of the company. I usually give small companies a break, since I know what it is like to stretch a dollar, while big companies, who will be saving lots of money by using my services, I tend to charge some amount between what it actuall costs me and what it would cost them to do it themselves - everyone is happy and the technology gets transferred. So if I were to translate this pricing policy into schema fields, I would probably need about two dozen fields to capture the art of selling and transferring reusable software, and even then, I am not sure if it would be possible to do so, because you can't factor in the negotiations that arise when actually trying to SELL components that are domain specific. But does this occur to any of the socialist bureacrats at ASSET and RIGaMORTIS? No, because none of them are reuse businessmen, even while that is the fundamental nature of what they are doing. Does it occur to them to ask the few of us who are software reuse businessmen? No, no, no ( Nanette, probably their wife's names). Does it occur to RIGaMORTIS to post an announcement to comp.lang.ada, comp.sw.components, or comp.software-eng soliciting advice? No know nose. Is there current 17 field schema any use for reuse businessmen? GNO, GNO, GNO. All other Ada policies aside, for which I am an amateur analyst, ASSET is a waste of money that has no idea and no interest in the business aspects of software reuse. They have not approached and rebuffed not only those few of us doing reuse as a business, but also those few reuse efforts inside the government that have been successful for many years (including a few inside the DoD that predate ASSET/DSRO/RAPID/MOUSE). When anyone from ASSET talks about their promoting of the business aspects of software reuse, they are lying, or at best naive. And since IBM and SAIC, under John Foreman at DARPA, are overseeing this mess, I assume they approve of these activities. I do not make up this waste, I just report. I may be obnoxious in my words (okay I am obnoxious in my words), but isn't the waste itself, and its tolerance, just as obnoxious and not more so? But credit where credit is due, so minimicrokudos to ASSET for finally figuring out what USENET is. Now, can we spell C - D - R - O - M ??? -- ************************************************************************** Greg Aharonian Source Translation & Optimization P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178