Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Michael P. Card]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2443 bytes --]

Hello CLA-

I considered the implied cost/benefit analogy for Ada here to be incorrect, and I addressed that in "Part 1".

As a separate topic, I would also say that RE: development tools for C/C++, the old adage "you get what you pay for" is still true. I have been on
jobs which used the freebie "gcc" tools that come from the RTOS vendor, and I have compared the kind of multi-threaded debugging/etc support that
you get with these tools to those available from third party compiler vendors.

I have heard people make arguments similar to this wire-cutter analogy, e.g. "Yeah, but we get a C/C++ compiler FOR FREE with the operating
system; these other tools cost thousands of dollars per seat! We can't afford that! How much difference could there be?"

It is unfortunate that these kinds of decisions are made at the beginning of a project before their full impact can be known. Only later do
problems like excessive memory usage, poor debugging support, erroneous or inefficient code generation, lack of exception handling etc. become
apparent, and by then it's too late to switch. Money gets wasted in lost productivity every day, and in the end you end up spending far more than
you would have to buy a better tool at the outset.

So, I would say again that even beyond Ada vs. C/C++/Java/C#/fad du jour arguments, there is a "cheap toolset vs. expensive toolset" argument
which is similar in that the "best" answer depends on what kind of job you are doing.

- Mike

Al Christians wrote:

> Jerry Petrey wrote:
> >
> > This is certainly not nonsense.  But don't feel bad.  Many people in
> > the industry are unable to understand the true cost of developing
> > software and only look at the up-front coding costs, tool costs, etc.  > That is one of the main reasons most software is over budget and of
> > poor quality or not even ever delivered.
> >
>
> Suppose you are an electrician and you hear about a new kind of
> wirecutter.  There are studies that say this wirecutter improves
> average productivity by 2%.  If you do the math, you can figure that
> this is worth $2,000 to you over the expected 5 year life of the
> wirecutters.  You go to the store and see $1,295 wirecutter on sale
> next to all the others at $11.  Which pair do you buy?  Which toolmaker
> has biggest market share and good cash flow to finance ways to improve
> their product?
>
> For $1,284 most can think up a reason why they are not average.
>
> Al

[-- Attachment #2: Card for Michael P. Card --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 344 bytes --]

begin:vcard 
n:Card;Michael
tel;fax:315-456-0441
tel;work:315-456-3022
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Lockheed Martin ;Ocean, Radar, and Sensor Systems
version:2.1
email;internet:michael.p.card@lmco.com
title:Principal Software Engineer
adr;quoted-printable:;;Electronics Park=0D=0ABuilding 6, Room 201;Syracuse;NY;13221;USA
fn:Michael Card
end:vcard

Death by analogy Part 2 (was RE: is Ada dead?)

[Michael P. Card]

Hello CLA-

I considered the implied cost/benefit analogy for Ada here to be
incorrect, and I addressed that in "Part 1".

As a separate topic, I would also say that RE: development tools for
C/C++, the old adage "you get what you pay for" is still true. I have
been on jobs which used the freebie "gcc" tools that come from the
RTOS vendor, and I have compared the kind of multi-threaded
debugging/etc support that you get with these tools to those available
from third party compiler vendors.

I have heard people make arguments similar to this wire-cutter
analogy, e.g. "Yeah, but we get a C/C++ compiler FOR FREE with the
operating system; these other tools cost thousands of dollars per
seat! We can't afford that! How much difference could there be?"

It is unfortunate that these kinds of decisions are made at the
beginning of a project before their full impact can be known. Only
later do problems like excessive memory usage, poor debugging support,
erroneous or inefficient code generation, lack of exception handling
etc. become apparent, and by then it's too late to switch. Money gets
wasted in lost productivity every day, and in the end you end up
spending far more than you would have to buy a better tool at the
outset.

So, I would say again that even beyond Ada vs. C/C++/Java/C#/fad du
jour arguments, there is a "cheap toolset vs. expensive toolset"
argument which is similar in that the "best" answer depends on what
kind of job you are doing.

- Mike

Al Christians wrote:

> Jerry Petrey wrote:
> >
> > This is certainly not nonsense.  But don't feel bad.  Many people in
> > the industry are unable to understand the true cost of developing
> > software and only look at the up-front coding costs, tool costs, etc.  > That is one of the main reasons most software is over budget and of
> > poor quality or not even ever delivered.
> >
>
> Suppose you are an electrician and you hear about a new kind of
> wirecutter.  There are studies that say this wirecutter improves
> average productivity by 2%.  If you do the math, you can figure that
> this is worth $2,000 to you over the expected 5 year life of the
> wirecutters.  You go to the store and see $1,295 wirecutter on sale
> next to all the others at $11.  Which pair do you buy?  Which toolmaker
> has biggest market share and good cash flow to finance ways to improve
> their product?
>
> For $1,284 most can think up a reason why they are not average.
>
> Al

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Al Christians]

Sure, the 2% example is low, but my analogy was 150% payback.  If the
math works, why wouldn't  people go for it?  Risk. Nothing is sure. 
I didn't say that it didn't pay off, but most won't make the investment.
Too much risk. Programming language is a hot-button issue for very
many.  
But it is way overblown.  Management is the number one factor related  
to software productivity.  The change in productivity from changing 
language is unlikely in most cases to exceed 30% or so, according to 
what I have read.  The variability of management is huge in comparison.
Investing in big budget software tools when you don't know what crazy
thing your PHB is going to do next is equally crazy.

What I was trying to illustrate by analogy is the difference between
value-based pricing (which is what the Ada software vendors cling to)
and cost-based pricing with costs spread over many more customers. 
Customers like cost-based pricing with costs spread over many more 
customers.  Most people will join the herd to gain these cost 
advantages. What is the value of food, water, or air?  Aren't we glad
that no one expects us to pay for these things what they are worth?

Consider the firm that is developing software and surviving without 
using Ada.  For example, may they use Java, Cobol, or Fortran to do 
things that are not too difficult with Java, Cobol, or Fortran, and
they are getting by ok.  Why risk a big investment to change language?
No reason.  Along comes a much bigger and more challenging development
opportunity, and they realize that Java, Cobol, or Fortran is not the
right way to go for taking on this bull by the tail.  Would they now
be wise to invest $100k/year+ in Ada tools so that they can rise to 
the occasion?  If they do, the odds are stacked against them.  Moving 
up to the next magnitude of difficulty or different problem domain and
changing languages simultaneous combines to be a big risk.  Not
advisable in the least.  Better they should have developed some good
experience in Ada by doing some minor projects with it over the years
before using it to try for the home run.  But who is going to spend
big bucks annually to license products for minor projects only?  Not
I when my budget gets reviewed.  

No need to argue with my crazy logic.  Just show me a bunch of 
companies developing applicationsoutside of the military and embedded 
systems markets in the 10-to-100-developer range that switched from 
anything else to Ada and succeeded and are still committed to it today.  
I'd be interested to know why and how.

Programming languages mostly propagate organically using low-level
contagion.  This is hindered by high $ price tag.


Al

"Michael P. Card" wrote:
> 
> Hello CLA-
> 
> I considered the implied cost/benefit analogy for Ada here to be incorrect, and I addressed that in "Part 1".
> 
> As a separate topic, I would also say that RE: development tools for C/C++, the old adage "you get what you pay for" is still true. I have been on
> jobs which used the freebie "gcc" tools that come from the RTOS vendor, and I have compared the kind of multi-threaded debugging/etc support that
> you get with these tools to those available from third party compiler vendors.
> 
> I have heard people make arguments similar to this wire-cutter analogy, e.g. "Yeah, but we get a C/C++ compiler FOR FREE with the operating
> system; these other tools cost thousands of dollars per seat! We can't afford that! How much difference could there be?"
> 
> It is unfortunate that these kinds of decisions are made at the beginning of a project before their full impact can be known. Only later do
> problems like excessive memory usage, poor debugging support, erroneous or inefficient code generation, lack of exception handling etc. become
> apparent, and by then it's too late to switch. Money gets wasted in lost productivity every day, and in the end you end up spending far more than
> you would have to buy a better tool at the outset.
> 
> So, I would say again that even beyond Ada vs. C/C++/Java/C#/fad du jour arguments, there is a "cheap toolset vs. expensive toolset" argument
> which is similar in that the "best" answer depends on what kind of job you are doing.
> 
> - Mike
> 
> Al Christians wrote:
> 
> > Jerry Petrey wrote:
> > >
> > > This is certainly not nonsense.  But don't feel bad.  Many people in
> > > the industry are unable to understand the true cost of developing
> > > software and only look at the up-front coding costs, tool costs, etc.  > That is one of the main reasons most software is over budget and of
> > > poor quality or not even ever delivered.
> > >
> >
> > Suppose you are an electrician and you hear about a new kind of
> > wirecutter.  There are studies that say this wirecutter improves
> > average productivity by 2%.  If you do the math, you can figure that
> > this is worth $2,000 to you over the expected 5 year life of the
> > wirecutters.  You go to the store and see $1,295 wirecutter on sale
> > next to all the others at $11.  Which pair do you buy?  Which toolmaker
> > has biggest market share and good cash flow to finance ways to improve
> > their product?
> >
> > For $1,284 most can think up a reason why they are not average.
> >
> > Al

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Michael P. Card]

Hey Al (& everyone else on CLA)

When you write

>Management is the number one factor related to software productivity.

I am inclined to agree. Good tools will not necessarily compensate for
bad management, but I would argue that good management would equip
their people with good tools!

You also wrote:

>The change in productivity from changing language is unlikely in most
> cases to exceed 30% or so, according to  what I have read

That may be so in many environments (though 20-30 percent is still
pretty significant IMO), but I think there are some cases where it may
be more significant. For example, I was a member of the software team
for the AN/BSY-2 combat system for the Seawolf class submarine. We had
hundreds of software engineers working to develop over one million
lines of Ada code for the combat system, which was fielded on embedded
68K micros with a custom built Ada RTOS.

The US Navy viewed this effort as a true Ada sucecss story (see 
http://www.adaic.org/docs/flyers/sears.shtml).

To quote Admiral Sears regarding Ada83:

"There are limits to the size of software systems which we can
feasibly
build with the technology at hand.  Ada provides the best intellectual
control available today for managing the development of huge software
systems, through its packaging concept, strong typing, and separate
compilation support."

Based on my experience building C++ systems which are MUCH smaller
than the AN/BSY-2, I would say that Ada made all the difference for
that program. We had good managers in place but if C++ had been used,
the Seawolf would never have sailed because we could never have
completed the job in a reasonable timeframe. It would have taken YEARS
longer and cost much more, if indeed it ever could have been made to
work.

In your "language change scenario" you wrote:

> Consider the firm that is developing software and surviving without 
> using Ada.  For example, may they use Java, Cobol, or Fortran to do 
> things that are not too difficult with Java, Cobol, or Fortran, and
> they are getting by ok.  Why risk a big investment to change language?
> No reason.  Along comes a much bigger and more challenging development
> opportunity, and they realize that Java, Cobol, or Fortran is not the
> right way to go for taking on this bull by the tail.  Would they now
> be wise to invest $100k/year+ in Ada tools so that they can rise to 
> the occasion?  If they do, the odds are stacked against them.

I agree that in this scenario a language change adds to the inherent
risk of a bigger job in a new problem domain. But, if they knew their
existing tools wouldn't do the job, isn't there a third option here,
i.e. hire a contractor to do the hard work in <Ada/Eiffel/whatever>
while training your best people and having them work alongside the
contactor(s)? It seems to me that an approach like this could help a
business bridge itself into a new technology without having to take
the "fatal plunge" of going into a new business area while
concurrently using a new technology with a completely unprepared
staff.

Finally, you asked:

> No need to argue with my crazy logic.  Just show me a bunch of 
> companies developing applicationsoutside of the military and embedded 
> systems markets in the 10-to-100-developer range that switched from 
> anything else to Ada and succeeded and are still committed to it today.  
> I'd be interested to know why and how.

OK, but realize here when you say "outside military and embedded
systems" you are excluding the main domains for Ada. That would be
akin to me asking you to show me a bunch of defense contractors that
switched from Ada to Java/C++ for million-line plus real-time
applications that succeeded and are still committed to Java/C++ today!

Anyway, I have no idea how many companies have switched from
C/C++/Java to Ada, but I did find this article in eweek interesting:

http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2769111,00.html

The interesting part (to me) is the passing reference to Ada for
automotive systems:

"Industrial advisory boards also agree, for example, recommending Ada
or Modula-2 ("having fewer insecurities and better type checking") for
writing the software underlying automotive systems. "

That is not a problem domain I normally hear associated with Ada,
though I did know someone who left the AN/BSY-2 program to join one of
the American Big 3 auto companies doing Ada programming.

Did GM/Ford/Chrysler switch from C to Ada for their embedded systems?
I have no idea. If anyone out there does know, please share with us!

Your closing statement

>Programming languages mostly propagate organically using low-level
>contagion.  This is hindered by high $ price tag.

seems correct to me, which is why I think compilers like GNAT and the
$99 version of Aonix's ObjectAda are good things.

- Mike

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Al Christians]

"Michael P. Card" wrote:
> 
> OK, but realize here when you say "outside military and embedded
> systems" you are excluding the main domains for Ada. That would be
> akin to me asking you to show me a bunch of defense contractors that
> switched from Ada to Java/C++ for million-line plus real-time
> applications that succeeded and are still committed to Java/C++ today!

It's not like Ada wasn't supposed to be good for banal, hackneyed or 
workaday applications.  It used to be popular amongst the European
banks, but have they stuck with it?  And there was Sage.  When Sage was
in Modula-2, it was used to develop a business-type database app that
was a success with many users (hundreds of public-sector organizations 
???) across the US.  Then Sage was converted to AdaSage, appeared on 
the Walnut Creek Ada CD, and was supposed to make it easy to develop 
run-of-the-mill database applications in Ada.  What share of the 
run-of-the-mill database application market does Ada now hold?  How 
successful has AdaSage been vis-a-vis Modula-2 Sage?


Al

RE: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.]

From: Bob Leif
To: Al Christians et al.
We built a commercial application with AdaSAGE under DOS (1). One major
problem with AdaSAGE was that it was that it did not use many of the
features of Ada 95; and to a large extent, it was Modula in Ada. However, it
was fast and reliable. From my experience with AdaSAGE, the combination of a
modern Ada database, such as Michael P. Card's FIRM, and an XML based GUI
could create some rich entrepreneurs.

I might note the AdaSAGE's and I believe Ada's biggest problem has been the
DoD's inability to  transfer Ada technology to the commercial sector.
Although US Defense contractors often have excellent technology, it appears,
at least in the case of Ada, that they have had no way to spin-off this
technology.

(1) R. C. Leif, R. Rios, M. C. Becker, C. K. Becker, J. T. Self, and S. B.
Leif, "The Creation of a Laboratory Instrument Quality Monitoring System
with AdaSAGE". Advanced Techniques in Analytical Cytology, Optical Diagnosis
of Living Cells and Biofluids, Ed. T. Askura, D. L. Farkas, R. C. Leif, A.
V. Priezzhev, , and B. J. Tromberg.. A. Katzir Progress in Biomedical Optics
Series Editor SPIE Proceedings Series, Vol. 2678, 232-239 (1996).

-----Original Message-----
From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
[mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org]On Behalf Of Al Christians
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 9:55 PM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)


"Michael P. Card" wrote:
>
> OK, but realize here when you say "outside military and embedded
> systems" you are excluding the main domains for Ada. That would be
> akin to me asking you to show me a bunch of defense contractors that
> switched from Ada to Java/C++ for million-line plus real-time
> applications that succeeded and are still committed to Java/C++ today!

It's not like Ada wasn't supposed to be good for banal, hackneyed or
workaday applications.  It used to be popular amongst the European
banks, but have they stuck with it?  And there was Sage.  When Sage was
in Modula-2, it was used to develop a business-type database app that
was a success with many users (hundreds of public-sector organizations
???) across the US.  Then Sage was converted to AdaSage, appeared on
the Walnut Creek Ada CD, and was supposed to make it easy to develop
run-of-the-mill database applications in Ada.  What share of the
run-of-the-mill database application market does Ada now hold?  How
successful has AdaSage been vis-a-vis Modula-2 Sage?


Al

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[John Kern]

"Michael P. Card" wrote:
> 
> Anyway, I have no idea how many companies have switched from
> C/C++/Java to Ada, but I did find this article in eweek interesting:
> 
> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2769111,00.html
> 
> The interesting part (to me) is the passing reference to Ada for
> automotive systems:
> 
> "Industrial advisory boards also agree, for example, recommending Ada
> or Modula-2 ("having fewer insecurities and better type checking") for
> writing the software underlying automotive systems. "
> 
> That is not a problem domain I normally hear associated with Ada,
> though I did know someone who left the AN/BSY-2 program to join one of
> the American Big 3 auto companies doing Ada programming.
> 
> Did GM/Ford/Chrysler switch from C to Ada for their embedded systems?
> I have no idea. If anyone out there does know, please share with us!
> 

This appears to be a reference to the MISRA Guidelines for C programming
in automotive systems, a summary of which is here:
http://www.misra.org.uk/graphics/miscprev.pdf

One would think than an industry which suffers from huge quality and
recall costs would appreciate a language which helps to minimize
software defects.

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Marin David Condic]

A thing is worth only what you can get someone to pay you for it. People
sometimes get the idea that the laws of Supply and Demand are irrational or
something that ought to be ignored. (Nurses and schoolteachers do such
valuable work. Why don't we pay them what we pay basketball stars?) Supply
and demand - while not exactly Gas Laws, might just as well be. Nobody has
ever successfully violated them for very long. (If there were only five
nurses in the whole world, we'd probably pay them what we pay Michael
Jordan.)

The "Value" of Ada is what you can get someone to pay you for it. One branch
of calculations might show an economic benefit that would seem to justify a
really high price tag, but a) people have substitutes and b) not everything
that they value is figured into the calculations. Sometimes people are
buying "cheap" because long term considerations just aren't important to
them. (Suppose I'm a garage startup evaluating a $100,000 Ada compiler that
only runs on a $250,000 computer - not far from where things were back in
the early days of Ada83. Someone else offers me a C compiler for a PC free
of charge. Are the long term savings of Ada worth it to me? Or maybe I'm
building products that I know are going to be out of date in 12 months and
that I'm *never* going to maintain them after initial release. Time to
market may be my cost driver. Will I buy an expensive Ada compiler over an
inexpensive C++ compiler?)

Of course, I would probably contend that most of this is moot. There *are*
inexpensive and reasonable quality Ada compilers out there that are suitable
for a whole range of development efforts. Cost can't be what is stopping
people from going there. I'd suspect the issue is more one of a) built in
prejudices of the people making language selections and b) lack of
competitive toolsets. Part A we can hope to deal with only through education
and perhaps bringing in a new generation of software engineers with
different prejudices. Part B we can hope to deal with by examining what
people are using to develop in other languages and duplicate++ what is
available to them there.

None of this comes easy. :-)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Al Christians" <alc@PublicPropertySoftware.com> wrote in message
news:3B4A2B3E.CD91C5DD@PublicPropertySoftware.com...
> advantages. What is the value of food, water, or air?  Aren't we glad
> that no one expects us to pay for these things what they are worth?
>

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Al Christians]

"Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." wrote:
> From my experience with AdaSAGE, the combination of a
> modern Ada database, such as Michael P. Card's FIRM, and an XML based > GUI could create some rich entrepreneurs.
> 

So, attempting to become a poster child 'rich entrepreneur' on behalf
of Ada I found some materials on-line about FIRM.  It's from Lockheed
and Martin, the same people who have done so well with AdaSage.  From
the web pages, I look for product or ordering info, so I can see how
much it costs to be rich entrepreneur.  No info there.  This is Ada and
military-industrial complex suppliers.  I assume it's the same old
story: If you have to ask, you can't afford it. 


Al

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[William Dale]

Al Christians wrote:
> 
> "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." wrote:
> > From my experience with AdaSAGE, the combination of a
> > modern Ada database, such as Michael P. Card's FIRM, and an XML based > GUI could create some rich entrepreneurs.
> >
> 
> So, attempting to become a poster child 'rich entrepreneur' on behalf
> of Ada I found some materials on-line about FIRM.  It's from Lockheed
> and Martin, the same people who have done so well with AdaSage.  From
> the web pages, I look for product or ordering info, so I can see how
> much it costs to be rich entrepreneur.  No info there.  This is Ada and
> military-industrial complex suppliers.  I assume it's the same old
> story: If you have to ask, you can't afford it.
> 
> Al

The real problem with products like FIRM is that DoD companies have no
mechanism for selling anything.  They simply do not think that way. 
They sell man hours to the government - not products to customers.  All
they can ask for from potential new users is a charge number to spend
support time on.  

Some are thinking of making things like FIRM "Open Source" but such
ideas are so foreign to DoD types (and their lawyers) it gags in their
throats to say the words.  They throw up hugh clouds of FUD and run
around waving their arms about copyrights and patents and liability.

Meanwhile no customers ever see or use the product.  And no money is
made.  And either the stock holders or the US tax payer has paid to
build another gizmo that goes into storage next to the 'Ark of the
Covenant.'  

Who will get to see it? "The best people!"

Not the opinion of my company - just my own ideas.

William Dale 
mailto:n2rhv@arrl.net

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Michael P. Card]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4729 bytes --]

Hey Al (& everyone else on CLA)-

A minor correction here to Dr. Leif's citation: it isn't my FIRM. I was one member of the excellent team that built
FIRM, and today I am one member of the team that is improving and deploying FIRM's successor (RODEO). Strictly
speaking, the intellectual property rights for FIRM and RODEO belong to Lockheed Martin Corporation and I think the
U.S. Government has "unlimited rights" as well, i.e. Lockheed cannot charge the U.S. Government a "license fee" to use
FIRM inasmuch as it was paid for with U.S. tax dollars.

Anyway, the situation you portray is this:

>This is Ada and military-industrial complex suppliers.  I assume it's the same old
>story: If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

I think the situation is worse than that! Right now, you can't get these particular products no matter how much $ you
have because defense contractors are not set up to be independent software vendors like Microsoft, Oracle, etc. Defense
contractors are very much (in my mind) like housing contractors. If you want them to build an addition on your house,
you give them a call and they come estimate the job and give you a quote (this is the RFP or Request For Proposal
phase). You haggle on the price, maybe you decide to give up a few square feet or a half bath to get within your budget
(the BAFO or Best And Final Offer process), and then finally you hire them to do the work (going under contract). They
then take longer than they originally estimated to finish the work ;-)

A business set up to operate in this kind of "build-to-order" environment is simply not capable of mastering the other
kind of business model, which would be more like "speculative manufacturing," where you build something you *think*
people will want to buy, thus putting your $$ at risk in hopes enough people will buy your product that you can recoup
your costs and make a profit. This kind of business model relies heavily on marketing and advertising to try to create
interest in the product, and DoD contractors really don't spend a lot of money on that, just like housing contractors
don't do much more than put ads in the Yellow Pages (maybe a billboard now and then).

So, products like FIRM and RODEO are developed as part of the process of building the requested DoD product (Seawolf
submarine, sonar system, EW system, whatever), and the intellectual property rights then lie with a business that is
not capable of turning these things into commercial products. Sure, we have made some half steps at this but there
really is no easy way to do it, and William Dale's post about lawyers is right on. There are a lot of legal nits to
work through when you even try to turn a taxpayer-funded piece of software into a commercial product. There are
probably open source legal considerations as well, and without an established policy on what to do even investigating
these issues will cost $$. Then there's the questions: How big would the market for these kinds of things be? What
would people pay? You have to spend $$ to even get decent answers to these kinds of questions, and in the DoD
contracting world that kind of $$ comes straight out of profit as the government cannot be billed for it. That makes
this kind of investment a non-starter in most places.

The easiest answer (IMO) would be for the US govt to "seed" commercial ventures for these kinds of things by providing
start-up funding to commercialize these products. This seems unfair since the government already paid to develop them,
but there is typically more investment required to make a truly off-the-shelf commercial product beyond what is needed
to build a product as a part of a larger system. The DoD contractors are not paid to spend this extra $$, they are paid
and encouraged to spend as little as possible. They are not motivated to start their own commercial enterprises and
they are usually not even equipped to do so if they wanted to. This leaves a gap that is generally not filled by
anyone.

- Mike

Al Christians wrote:

> "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." wrote:
> > From my experience with AdaSAGE, the combination of a
> > modern Ada database, such as Michael P. Card's FIRM, and an XML based > GUI could create some rich entrepreneurs.
> >
>
> So, attempting to become a poster child 'rich entrepreneur' on behalf
> of Ada I found some materials on-line about FIRM.  It's from Lockheed
> and Martin, the same people who have done so well with AdaSage.  From
> the web pages, I look for product or ordering info, so I can see how
> much it costs to be rich entrepreneur.  No info there.  This is Ada and
> military-industrial complex suppliers.  I assume it's the same old
> story: If you have to ask, you can't afford it.
>
> Al

[-- Attachment #2: Card for Michael P. Card --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 344 bytes --]

begin:vcard 
n:Card;Michael
tel;fax:315-456-0441
tel;work:315-456-3022
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Lockheed Martin ;Ocean, Radar, and Sensor Systems
version:2.1
email;internet:michael.p.card@lmco.com
title:Principal Software Engineer
adr;quoted-printable:;;Electronics Park=0D=0ABuilding 6, Room 201;Syracuse;NY;13221;USA
fn:Michael Card
end:vcard

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Ed Falis]

"Michael P. Card" wrote:

> A business set up to operate in this kind of "build-to-order" environment is simply not capable of mastering the other
> kind of business model, which would be more like "speculative manufacturing," where you build something you *think*
> people will want to buy, thus putting your $$ at risk in hopes enough people will buy your product that you can recoup
> your costs and make a profit.

Yes, and the inability to handle it on the procurement side had a lot to do with the demise of several compiler vendors
(who were following the ISV model), because the expectations were for custom support / product enhancement at commodity
prices.  Witness the (lack of) success of Aonix' windows product, that was priced comparably to Visual Studio, and
approached it in terms of capability.  But Ada customers wanted the kind of support they got with 5-digit development
systems.

By the way, Al, I don't remember selling any 6-digit development systems in the 16 years I was with Alsys/Thomson/Aonix.
Maybe the big R got away with it, but I don't think anyone else did, and few tried.

- Ed

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Ted Dennison]

In article <3B4B4BF9.12C1E8C@lmco.com>, Michael P. Card says...
>A business set up to operate in this kind of "build-to-order" environment is 
>simply not capable of mastering the other kind of business model, which would 
>be more like "speculative manufacturing," where you build something you *think*

When I was at LMC in Orlando they tried to commercialize their simulation image
generator business by making PC video chips. Their initial product was actually
fairly nice. It ran the Daytona USA consoles, and through a partnership with
Intel, got put in a lot of video boards. 

The problems happened after that. It seemed like they just didn't know how to
run a commercial business, but they knew what one looked like. So they practiced
some slavish cargo-cult style of business building. They separated themselves
from all the LMC support organizations in the building, so that they could be
lean-n-mean, but kept the same top-heavy management structure that the rest of
the org had (if anything, it was even worse). They saw that other commercial
companies give out free sodas, so they gave out free sodas. They saw that other
commercial companies use lots of inexperienced developers, so they refused to
accept transfers from anyone in the plant with more than 2 years of experience.

In the end, their biggest success was in selling the group itself to Intel
(another big company). I don't think they ever did ship a second-generation
chip.

>interest in the product, and DoD contractors really don't spend a lot of money 
>on that, just like housing contractors don't do much more than put ads in the 

Actually, they do. You just don't see them much because you don't golf or hang
out in bars. :-) But their marketing folks have probably never talked to anyone
who didn't have at least $15mil buring a hole in their pocket. They are more
sales people than anything.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Al Christians]

"Michael P. Card" wrote:
> 
> Hey Al (& everyone else on CLA)-
> 
> 
> I think the situation is worse than that! Right now, you can't get 
> these particular products no matter how much $ you
> have because ...
>
> The easiest answer (IMO) would be for the US govt to "seed" 
> commercial ventures for these kinds of things by providing
> start-up funding to commercialize these products. 
>

You are saying (?) that:

1. Contractor can't figure out how to market this unless some one gives
them a contract to figure that out, and

2. Nobody can figure out how to give it away because lawyers turn colors
over the prospect,  but

3. There is some slim change that the government might be able to figure
out how to give entrepreneur funding so that entrepreneur can use the 
government money to buy the product (from the government or from the 
contractor? IDK)  and then be profitable business as a value-added 
reseller of this product to the refractory, yak-fat-extracting, widget
womping, rental repair, and on-line fortune-telling industries? Sounds
like a guaranteed ticket to the Fortune 65535.  Put my name on the list.

BTW, one time previous when I was looking for available Ada database
software, I came across a package on the Ada CD-ROM that was developed
by a branch of the US government (I won't use any names 
because of what I'm going to say)  that wears tin hats and carries 
rifles.  This was some kind of keyed file package that returned data
according to key using a linear search of the entire file for each 
request.  Whether this was first implemented to work with a tape drive,
IDK.  Nothing about this is paranormal, but that it was written this
way, and made available as a reusable component, and published on the
Ada CD is a little bit different from what one would expect from reading
too much CLA, where Ada renames Superb. But maybe the story for Ada is 
not that different from the story for everything else.


Al

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Ed Falis]

> BTW, one time previous when I was looking for available Ada database
> software, I came across a package on the Ada CD-ROM that was developed
> by a branch of the US government (I won't use any names
> because of what I'm going to say)  that wears tin hats and carries
> rifles.  This was some kind of keyed file package that returned data
> according to key using a linear search of the entire file for each
> request.  Whether this was first implemented to work with a tape drive,
> IDK.  Nothing about this is paranormal, but that it was written this
> way, and made available as a reusable component, and published on the
> Ada CD is a little bit different from what one would expect from reading
> too much CLA, where Ada renames Superb. But maybe the story for Ada is
> not that different from the story for everything else.
>
> Al

Reminds me of the time ;-)

... when we had a fire to put out with a customer because their database
system was killing the compiler.  Took a look at the thing, which had
gratuitous, nearly recursive, instantiation of generics.  Asked the
customer where they got that code.  "Oh, it was something we got out of one
of the repositories".  "Talked to the author"?  "I'll check".

Turns out that the code that got put into this system was designed by the
author as a compiler stress test for generics.  Turning a layer or two of
instantiation inside out fixed the problem.

Who was saying something about management vs language?

- Ed

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Ted Dennison]

In article <3B4B613B.25659225@mediaone.net>, Ed Falis says...
>
>prices.  Witness the (lack of) success of Aonix' windows product, that was 
>priced comparably to Visual Studio, and approached it in terms of capability.
>But Ada customers wanted the kind of support they got with 5-digit development
>systems.

IANAM (I am not a marketeer - for one thing, I'm sober), but as near as I can
tell, they never tried to sell that system the same way Visual Studio is sold. I
never once saw it on a store shelf next to the VC++, Java, and Delphi boxes, or
in a software catalog. Instead, they used the same outlets that Rational et. al.
use for their high-margin systems. If you don't go for mass sales, how can you
hope to use that business model?

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Marin David Condic]

In the end, all this stuff is being done by fallible human beings who are
going to do dumb things no matter what language you give them. (It probably
has something to do with the Tower of Babel.) Ada is going to help reduce
some of the truly boneheaded things programmers do when they program, but it
isn't going to stop the more diabolically clever stupidities.

We need to remember that we can't hold Ada up as a panacea or expectations
will be unreasonably high. Saying that it is going to *help* you get to good
code is true and valuable enough.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Ed Falis" <efalis@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B4B68D9.1999919F@mediaone.net...
>
> Reminds me of the time ;-)
>
> ... when we had a fire to put out with a customer because their database
> system was killing the compiler.  Took a look at the thing, which had
> gratuitous, nearly recursive, instantiation of generics.  Asked the
> customer where they got that code.  "Oh, it was something we got out of
one
> of the repositories".  "Talked to the author"?  "I'll check".
>
> Turns out that the code that got put into this system was designed by the
> author as a compiler stress test for generics.  Turning a layer or two of
> instantiation inside out fixed the problem.
>
> Who was saying something about management vs language?
>

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Ed Falis]

Ted Dennison wrote:

> In article <3B4B613B.25659225@mediaone.net>, Ed Falis says...
> >
> >prices.  Witness the (lack of) success of Aonix' windows product, that was
> >priced comparably to Visual Studio, and approached it in terms of capability.
> >But Ada customers wanted the kind of support they got with 5-digit development
> >systems.
>
> IANAM (I am not a marketeer - for one thing, I'm sober), but as near as I can
> tell, they never tried to sell that system the same way Visual Studio is sold. I
> never once saw it on a store shelf next to the VC++, Java, and Delphi boxes, or
> in a software catalog. Instead, they used the same outlets that Rational et. al.
> use for their high-margin systems. If you don't go for mass sales, how can you
> hope to use that business model?
>
> ---
> T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
>           home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Hate to disillusion, but it was attempted, and they were unable to get
shelf-space.  They also tried to pursue bundling into Visual Studio, which went
nowhere.

I was a marketer, and was sober, though those products weren't my responsibility.

- Ed

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Al Christians]

Ed Falis wrote:
> 
> By the way, Al, I don't remember selling any 6-digit development 
> systems in the 16 years I was with Alsys/Thomson/Aonix.
> Maybe the big R got away with it, but I don't think anyone else did, 
> and few tried.
> 

It is not easy to speak from authority on this, since prices are not
on-line to reference.  And I don't want to ask about price and be a
nuisance when I know as a rambling and scrambling 1-man consultancy I
can't afford this stuff, anyhow, and the vendors are so nice to make 
possible freely available versions. I have paid for four Ada compilers 
in my time, from four different vendors, and none of them was over 
$2,000.  But it has happened some times in the past when I pointed out 
some problems with the freely available versions of some Ada products 
here on CLA, figuring that CLA is where there are the most users and I 
might get some help,  that a response came back from vendor that  if I 
was a supported customer instead of a 
taker-advantage-of-the-free-goodies-when-I'm-not-even-a-studenter
that the problems would be no problems.  My natural response to such 
messages is, "OK, how much would it cost to get this fixed?", and I have
let that response, however impertinent, issue forth from time to time.  
Then I've got to talk to sales, and it's hard even to get pre-qualified 
to talk to sales.  But the prices I have been exposed to over the years 
run to the order of $1,000 per seat per month and the debugger is extra, 
I think, and then there are these  minimums of six seats (last I heard, 
but I try to avoid hearing, as I said above), and when I start adding it 
all up and multiplying by the duration of the typical project, I'm into 
multiple sheets of paper and six-figures more or less, plus or minus. 

I'm not on CLA to argue.  I don't like to argue.  I don't want to argue.
If anyone doesn't like this kind of idle babbling, they can pre-empt
any argument by publishing a price list and posting a url.  I'm not 
typing about anyone in particular.  Please have mercy. I'm just trying
to explain myself to Ed, not provoke anything, or criticize anyone's
business model. You've got mouths to feed just as I do.  Do it however
you please. TIA for your indulgence. 


Al

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Michael P. Card]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3520 bytes --]

Hey Al (& everyone else on CLA)-

Al Christians wrote:

>You are saying (?) that:
>
>1. Contractor can't figure out how to market this unless some one gives
>them a contract to figure that out, and

No, I am saying that there are some sticky intellectual property, national
security and ownership issues that make this kind of thing difficult. Not
impossible, just difficult. And the contractor is generally not paid to
market things they develop during the course of a contract, so there is the
"who pays" issue...

>2. Nobody can figure out how to give it away because lawyers turn colors
>over the prospect,  but

Again, almost. It can be figured out and probably can be done, but who is
going to pay the lawyers? The contractor is not going to want to spend
profit $ to pay lawyers to make the source code they developed open-source.
Why would they?

>3. There is some slim change that the government might be able to figure
>out how to give entrepreneur funding so that entrepreneur can use the
>government money to buy the product (from the government or from the
>contractor? IDK)

The government has unlimited rights already, and depending on the contract
they may have/ be able to purchase any remaining intellectual property
rights from the contractor. Why would the government do this? Specifically
for the purpose of commercializing defense technology much as they have
already commercialized some space technology. The government has spent
additional money to get technology it already paid for in defense/space
projects into the commercial business world before.

>and then be profitable business as a value-added
>reseller of this product to the refractory, yak-fat-extracting, widget
>womping, rental repair, and on-line fortune-telling industries? Sounds
>like a guaranteed ticket to the Fortune 65535.  Put my name on the list.

That's the idea. The general way this goes, I think, is that the
"commercializer" retains full intellectual property rights to any
enhancements they make to the government-owned stuff. I do not think the
government would get royalties in this kind of arrangement, so the
government is in the role of providing an industrial incentive (corporate
welfare if you like) for the purpose of putting new technology into the
economy, and doubtless they would expect their "investment" to be returned
manyfold by the benefits incurred. Similar arguments are made RE: side
benefits of the space program and the government-funded technology that
eventually made its way into consumer products. I am not prepared to argue
the merits of those arguments, but this is the general idea.

>BTW, one time previous when I was looking for available Ada database
>software, I came across a package on the Ada CD-ROM that was developed
>by a branch of the US government (I won't use any names
>because of what I'm going to say)  that wears tin hats and carries
>rifles.  This was some kind of keyed file package that returned data
>according to key using a linear search of the entire file for each
>request.  Whether this was first implemented to work with a tape drive,
>IDK.  Nothing about this is paranormal, but that it was written this
>way, and made available as a reusable component, and published on the
>Ada CD is a little bit different from what one would expect from reading
>too much CLA, where Ada renames Superb. But maybe the story for Ada is
>not that different from the story for everything else.

Wow! Sounds like the CD needed an editor (I mean the human variety)!!

- Mike


[-- Attachment #2: Card for Michael P. Card --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 344 bytes --]

begin:vcard 
n:Card;Michael
tel;fax:315-456-0441
tel;work:315-456-3022
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
org:Lockheed Martin ;Ocean, Radar, and Sensor Systems
version:2.1
email;internet:michael.p.card@lmco.com
title:Principal Software Engineer
adr;quoted-printable:;;Electronics Park=0D=0ABuilding 6, Room 201;Syracuse;NY;13221;USA
fn:Michael Card
end:vcard

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Ted Dennison]

In article <3B4B6BBA.FC9439C1@mediaone.net>, Ed Falis says...
>
>Hate to disillusion, but it was attempted, and they were unable to get
>shelf-space.  They also tried to pursue bundling into Visual Studio, which went
>nowhere.

Actually, the first half of that does not shock me at all. I understand you
basicly have to *pay* for shelf-space, which can't be easy for a small company. 
So it was indeed tried, but you have to admit that it never really reached
places where the mass market buys. 

>I was a marketer, and was sober, though those products weren't my 

Sorry for the interjection of personal prejudice. But you must have a really
awesome handicap then, right? :-)

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Marin David Condic]

I'd agree that the "go become a supported user and all your troubles will
vanish" response to problems with a compiler are not going to get very far
if the support contract starts becomming way too expensive for the average
well-paid geek to afford. Its hard to justify a grand or two for a compiler
that maybe you don't have a revenue-generating project to pay for, let alone
a support contract that might be an order of magnitude or more larger. If
the appeal is aimed at getting me to talk my parent corporation into
spending the funds - heck! I can't even talk them into using Ada on a "real"
project to begin with! How am I going to get them to pony up for support? If
its aimed at me as a private citizen - I'm just not that wealthy.

This isn't a complaint, but it is an observation about market realities. The
businessman needs to understand how people view it and adjust the business
plan to provide something people *will* buy.

Microsoft offers basically a newsletter and quarterly updates that are
within the reach (maybe) of an independent developer. They may not be the
model to copy, but it does suggest that folks will buy a compiler with
limited support. How to get that product to the mainstream where it might
generate the critical mass? I don't know, but there is probably an answer.
If your compiler is a "sunk cost" and not generating enough revenue to make
supporting it seem worth the effort, then maybe its time to take a "We Have
Nothing To Lose" approach and put the thing out "as is" somewhere for free
or some nominal cost under $100. Or maybe it needs to be heavily donated to
schools? Or possibly value-added partners can be taken in - companies or
small-time developers who could add something to the product in exchange for
some right to re-market it? Figuring out the right answer requires a good
deal of creativity and a willingness to break the mold.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Al Christians" <achrist@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:3B4B6F44.8C7CC353@easystreet.com...
> It is not easy to speak from authority on this, since prices are not
> on-line to reference.  And I don't want to ask about price and be a
> nuisance when I know as a rambling and scrambling 1-man consultancy I
> can't afford this stuff, anyhow, and the vendors are so nice to make
> possible freely available versions. I have paid for four Ada compilers
> in my time, from four different vendors, and none of them was over
> $2,000.  But it has happened some times in the past when I pointed out
> some problems with the freely available versions of some Ada products
> here on CLA, figuring that CLA is where there are the most users and I
> might get some help,  that a response came back from vendor that  if I
> was a supported customer instead of a
> taker-advantage-of-the-free-goodies-when-I'm-not-even-a-studenter
> that the problems would be no problems.  My natural response to such
> messages is, "OK, how much would it cost to get this fixed?", and I have
> let that response, however impertinent, issue forth from time to time.
> Then I've got to talk to sales, and it's hard even to get pre-qualified
> to talk to sales.  But the prices I have been exposed to over the years
> run to the order of $1,000 per seat per month and the debugger is extra,
> I think, and then there are these  minimums of six seats (last I heard,
> but I try to avoid hearing, as I said above), and when I start adding it
> all up and multiplying by the duration of the typical project, I'm into
> multiple sheets of paper and six-figures more or less, plus or minus.
>
> I'm not on CLA to argue.  I don't like to argue.  I don't want to argue.
> If anyone doesn't like this kind of idle babbling, they can pre-empt
> any argument by publishing a price list and posting a url.  I'm not
> typing about anyone in particular.  Please have mercy. I'm just trying
> to explain myself to Ed, not provoke anything, or criticize anyone's
> business model. You've got mouths to feed just as I do.  Do it however
> you please. TIA for your indulgence.
>
>
> Al

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Ed Falis]

Al Christians wrote:

>
> It is not easy to speak from authority on this, since prices are not
> on-line to reference.  And I don't want to ask about price and be a
> nuisance when I know as a rambling and scrambling 1-man consultancy I
> can't afford this stuff, anyhow, and the vendors are so nice to make
> possible freely available versions. I have paid for four Ada compilers
> in my time, from four different vendors, and none of them was over
> $2,000.  But it has happened some times in the past when I pointed out
> some problems with the freely available versions of some Ada products
> here on CLA, figuring that CLA is where there are the most users and I
> might get some help,  that a response came back from vendor that  if I
> was a supported customer instead of a
> taker-advantage-of-the-free-goodies-when-I'm-not-even-a-studenter
> that the problems would be no problems.

Al, I understand your point.  Note that I currently work for that vendor,
but I'm speaking for myself, from being in this business a long time.  It's
been rough times for all of us aficionados of the language, regardless of
what our involvement has been.  The vendor I used to work for started out
with the premise of inexpensive Ada, widely-available (after all, it was
started by the language designer), and we made a lot of mistakes along the
way.  Even our successes rarely paid off.  But excepting R&R and to an
extent Meridian, we consistently tried to get Ada to a widespread basis
with reasonable cost more than anyone else.  And it didn't fit the business
context.  The customers we dealt with at that other company wanted
commodity pricing and defense-contractor level support.  There was no way
to deliver both, and I don't think there is now.  Microsoft certainly
doesn't, and neither do any of the other vendors for development products
in the $100 to $600 range.  For us Ada guys, there was the additional
problem of general lack of broader market interest, despite sinking a lot
of money into advertizing and so on.

So, I don't know what the answer is to your dilemma (and you're not the
only person with it).  But what ACT offers in terms of support reflects the
cost to provide it, and I think it also reflects the value rendered in
return.

You've probably used the Visual Studios, and Sun JDK's, and Borland
products.  They're not perfect, and often the quality is well below e.g.
GNAT or ObjectAda.  And just as often, the option for any kind of real
support doesn't exist.  Or if it does, it's part of a "larger" deal with a
concomitant ongoing price tag.  You can't get blood out of stone.

I'm sorry if I'm sounding a bit combative - it's not my intention, but
I guess a fair part of my career has been tied to these issues.  I'm often
not so pleased looking back.

- Ed

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Ed Falis]

>
> >I was a marketer, and was sober, though those products weren't my
>
> Sorry for the interjection of personal prejudice. But you must have a really
> awesome handicap then, right? :-)
>

Nah, I'm back in development now ;-)

- Ed

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Ted Dennison]

In article <3B4B7319.ECD3A4D3@mediaone.net>, Ed Falis says...
>
>I guess a fair part of my career has been tied to these issues.  I'm often
>not so pleased looking back.

Don't feel bad about having tried something worthwile and failed. Never trying
is what would have been sad.

And perhaps the day may yet come when the battle *can* be won.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Marin David Condic]

"Ed Falis" <efalis@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B4B7319.ECD3A4D3@mediaone.net...
> in the $100 to $600 range.  For us Ada guys, there was the additional
> problem of general lack of broader market interest, despite sinking a lot
> of money into advertizing and so on.
>
I grok the broader interest part, but in terms of "advertizing" dollars -
what exactly is "a lot"? I think Coca Cola spends "a lot" on advertizing. I
doubt that any vendors beyond Microsoft and Sun have spent "a lot" relative
to that kind of scale. The thing is, if someone actually *did* spend that
many cubic dollars on promoting Ada and getting it to be a "Household Word"
we'd all be able to kiss C/C++ goodbye.

> So, I don't know what the answer is to your dilemma (and you're not the
> only person with it).  But what ACT offers in terms of support reflects
the
> cost to provide it, and I think it also reflects the value rendered in
> return.
>
No reason to blame ACT or anyone else for charging what they have to in
order to provide a service. I think a fair complaint is that there seems to
be no "middle ground". Either you're on the Defense Contractor level of
support contract or you're left hanging out there twisting slowly, slowly in
the wind. Not much of a problem if you're talking about a highly stable &
reliable product, but if there are new features or bug fixes coming out
frequently, one would like a way to get them quickly without having the
full-boat hand-holding charges.


> You've probably used the Visual Studios, and Sun JDK's, and Borland
> products.  They're not perfect, and often the quality is well below e.g.
> GNAT or ObjectAda.  And just as often, the option for any kind of real
> support doesn't exist.  Or if it does, it's part of a "larger" deal with a
> concomitant ongoing price tag.  You can't get blood out of stone.
>
Maybe you can't get the Defense Contractor level of support for Visual
Studio, et alia, but you can subscribe to get quarterly updates, etc. That's
at least something.

> I'm sorry if I'm sounding a bit combative - it's not my intention, but
> I guess a fair part of my career has been tied to these issues.  I'm often
> not so pleased looking back.
>
We can all look back and see things in the past that maybe we consider less
than stellar achievement or huge successes. But its the process - not the
product. *We* are changed in the process. :-)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/

RE: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.]

From: Bob Leif
To: Michael P. Card et al.
From my experience with AdaSAGE, I tend to agree with you. The question is
how do we improve DoD technology transfer? The US Congress should be upset
about this. I might note that DoD should NOT be allowed to justify part of
its cost as being reimbursed by technology transfer. The simplest solution
for the DoD contractors is to follow the path taken by most well managed
universities, turn the intellectual property over to its creators.

It might pay to explain this problem to NSF. It would also make a great
story for Science magazine or the equivalent.

-----Original Message-----
From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
[mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org]On Behalf Of Michael P. Card
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 11:40 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)


Hey Al (& everyone else on CLA)-

A minor correction here to Dr. Leif's citation: it isn't my FIRM. I was one
member of the excellent team that built
FIRM, and today I am one member of the team that is improving and deploying
FIRM's successor (RODEO). Strictly
speaking, the intellectual property rights for FIRM and RODEO belong to
Lockheed Martin Corporation and I think the
U.S. Government has "unlimited rights" as well, i.e. Lockheed cannot charge
the U.S. Government a "license fee" to use
FIRM inasmuch as it was paid for with U.S. tax dollars.

Anyway, the situation you portray is this:

>This is Ada and military-industrial complex suppliers.  I assume it's the
same old
>story: If you have to ask, you can't afford it.

I think the situation is worse than that! Right now, you can't get these
particular products no matter how much $ you
have because defense contractors are not set up to be independent software
vendors like Microsoft, Oracle, etc. Defense
contractors are very much (in my mind) like housing contractors. If you want
them to build an addition on your house,
you give them a call and they come estimate the job and give you a quote
(this is the RFP or Request For Proposal
phase). You haggle on the price, maybe you decide to give up a few square
feet or a half bath to get within your budget
(the BAFO or Best And Final Offer process), and then finally you hire them
to do the work (going under contract). They
then take longer than they originally estimated to finish the work ;-)

A business set up to operate in this kind of "build-to-order" environment is
simply not capable of mastering the other
kind of business model, which would be more like "speculative
manufacturing," where you build something you *think*
people will want to buy, thus putting your $$ at risk in hopes enough people
will buy your product that you can recoup
your costs and make a profit. This kind of business model relies heavily on
marketing and advertising to try to create
interest in the product, and DoD contractors really don't spend a lot of
money on that, just like housing contractors
don't do much more than put ads in the Yellow Pages (maybe a billboard now
and then).

So, products like FIRM and RODEO are developed as part of the process of
building the requested DoD product (Seawolf
submarine, sonar system, EW system, whatever), and the intellectual property
rights then lie with a business that is
not capable of turning these things into commercial products. Sure, we have
made some half steps at this but there
really is no easy way to do it, and William Dale's post about lawyers is
right on. There are a lot of legal nits to
work through when you even try to turn a taxpayer-funded piece of software
into a commercial product. There are
probably open source legal considerations as well, and without an
established policy on what to do even investigating
these issues will cost $$. Then there's the questions: How big would the
market for these kinds of things be? What
would people pay? You have to spend $$ to even get decent answers to these
kinds of questions, and in the DoD
contracting world that kind of $$ comes straight out of profit as the
government cannot be billed for it. That makes
this kind of investment a non-starter in most places.

The easiest answer (IMO) would be for the US govt to "seed" commercial
ventures for these kinds of things by providing
start-up funding to commercialize these products. This seems unfair since
the government already paid to develop them,
but there is typically more investment required to make a truly
off-the-shelf commercial product beyond what is needed
to build a product as a part of a larger system. The DoD contractors are not
paid to spend this extra $$, they are paid
and encouraged to spend as little as possible. They are not motivated to
start their own commercial enterprises and
they are usually not even equipped to do so if they wanted to. This leaves a
gap that is generally not filled by
anyone.

- Mike

Al Christians wrote:

> "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." wrote:
> > From my experience with AdaSAGE, the combination of a
> > modern Ada database, such as Michael P. Card's FIRM, and an XML based >
GUI could create some rich entrepreneurs.
> >
>
> So, attempting to become a poster child 'rich entrepreneur' on behalf
> of Ada I found some materials on-line about FIRM.  It's from Lockheed
> and Martin, the same people who have done so well with AdaSage.  From
> the web pages, I look for product or ordering info, so I can see how
> much it costs to be rich entrepreneur.  No info there.  This is Ada and
> military-industrial complex suppliers.  I assume it's the same old
> story: If you have to ask, you can't afford it.
>
> Al

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Ed Falis]

Marin David Condic wrote:

> Maybe you can't get the Defense Contractor level of support for Visual
> Studio, et alia, but you can subscribe to get quarterly updates, etc. That's
> at least something.
>
>

Well, we did do that (though the updates were less frequent) with OA for
windows.  What we got were complaints and people still expecting to call and
get "traditional" phone support, even though the terms were clear that there
were something like 30 days installation support provided.  For traditional
support there was a multi-seat license arrangement with an entry point not
dissimilar to gnat level 1 in price.  People were outraged that they had to pay
so much to get support.

- Ed

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[DuckE]

"Ed Falis" <efalis@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B4B613B.25659225@mediaone.net...
> "Michael P. Card" wrote:
[...]
>
> Yes, and the inability to handle it on the procurement side had a lot to
do with the demise of several compiler vendors
> (who were following the ISV model), because the expectations were for
custom support / product enhancement at commodity
> prices.  Witness the (lack of) success of Aonix' windows product, that was
priced comparably to Visual Studio, and
> approached it in terms of capability.  But Ada customers wanted the kind
of support they got with 5-digit development
> systems.

As an ObjectAda user it is my opinion that the lack of success of Aonix'
windows product likely has little to do with wanting the support of 5-digit
development systems.

Unless support means providing a usable debugger with the system.  Until
version 7.1.2 the debugger was a bad joke.  Still with 7.2 the debugger has
some problems (though few).

When a debugger doesn't allow you to set breakpoints or exammine the content
of arrays of data, or just as bad, incorrectly displays data, it is very
frustrating.  Frustrating enough to move to a different development
environment.  Sometimes frustrating enough to move to a different
programming language that provides a debugging enviroment that works.

In order for ObjectAda to succeed it must be a solid product, and it must
continue to grow and improve.  Unfortunately, about the same time what I
believe is the first viable version of the product was delivered (OA 7.2)
Aonix apparently decided that it was not a product worth the significant
continued investment to to improve.

SteveD

>
> By the way, Al, I don't remember selling any 6-digit development systems
in the 16 years I was with Alsys/Thomson/Aonix.
> Maybe the big R got away with it, but I don't think anyone else did, and
few tried.
>
> - Ed
>
>

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Ed Falis]

DuckE wrote:

> As an ObjectAda user it is my opinion that the lack of success of Aonix'
> windows product likely has little to do with wanting the support of 5-digit
> development systems.

I'll continue to disagree about that one.

>
>
> Unless support means providing a usable debugger with the system.  Until
> version 7.1.2 the debugger was a bad joke.  Still with 7.2 the debugger has
> some problems (though few).

I also concede that there were problems in that area.

>  Unfortunately, about the same time what I
> believe is the first viable version of the product was delivered (OA 7.2)
> Aonix apparently decided that it was not a product worth the significant
> continued investment to to improve.
>

Yes, I was part of the dead weight the company relieved itself of ;-)

- Ed

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[DuckE]

"Ed Falis" <efalis@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B4CBEAD.1A170570@mediaone.net...
> DuckE wrote:
>
> > As an ObjectAda user it is my opinion that the lack of success of Aonix'
> > windows product likely has little to do with wanting the support of
5-digit
> > development systems.
>
> I'll continue to disagree about that one.
>

I'd be interested hearing examples of just what people expect for support.

When doing soft software development, when I encounter a problem with one of
the development tools I generate a minimal subset of the system that
reproduces the problem.  Sometimes I find that the problem is not in fact
with the tool, but with an error on my part.

Once I do generate a small example that reproduces the problem, I report the
problem to the tool vendor.

Is this is the type of support you're talking about, I can't understand more
than $1K per developer seat for the system.

On the other hand, if you're getting calls about "How do I use a protected
type" then I understand the problem.

SteveD

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[David Humphris]

DuckE <nospam_steved94@home.com> wrote in message
news:q_O27.328129$p33.6632851@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
> "Ed Falis" <efalis@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3B4B613B.25659225@mediaone.net...
>
> As an ObjectAda user it is my opinion that the lack of success of Aonix'
> windows product likely has little to do with wanting the support of
5-digit
> development systems.
>
> Unless support means providing a usable debugger with the system.  Until
> version 7.1.2 the debugger was a bad joke.  Still with 7.2 the debugger
has
> some problems (though few).
>
> When a debugger doesn't allow you to set breakpoints or exammine the
content
> of arrays of data, or just as bad, incorrectly displays data, it is very
> frustrating.  Frustrating enough to move to a different development
> environment.  Sometimes frustrating enough to move to a different
> programming language that provides a debugging enviroment that works.
>
> In order for ObjectAda to succeed it must be a solid product, and it must
> continue to grow and improve.  Unfortunately, about the same time what I
> believe is the first viable version of the product was delivered (OA 7.2)
> Aonix apparently decided that it was not a product worth the significant
> continued investment to to improve.

This is not the case.

Aonix continues to take the Ada products, including ObjectAda for Windows,
forward with new versions.

In fact a new version of ObjectAda for Windows (7.2.1) is due for release
in a couple of months time.  One of the focuses of this product is to make
improvements in the debugger robustness and functionality.

David Humphris
Aonix

> SteveD

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[DuckE]

"David Humphris" <dhumphris@aonix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9ijlnq$5or$1@reader-00.news.insnet.cw.net...
[,,,]
> This is not the case.
>
> Aonix continues to take the Ada products, including ObjectAda for Windows,
> forward with new versions.
>
> In fact a new version of ObjectAda for Windows (7.2.1) is due for release
> in a couple of months time.  One of the focuses of this product is to make
> improvements in the debugger robustness and functionality.
>

This is good news.

SteveD

> David Humphris
> Aonix
>
> > SteveD
>
>
>

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Lao Xiao Hai]

At long last we hear from someone at Aonix.   Does that mean they are
still in the Ada business?    It is really hard to tell.   There seems to
be little in the way of visibility.     Nice to hear they are upgrading
their compiler and development tools.   Did they plan to tell anyone
about this?

Now, is Rational still in the Ada business?   And are they planning to
let the rest of world know they are?   Are they improving their Ada
products?   Do they plan to let those of us in the Ada community know
about their upgraded products?   Some of us might be interested.

I get regular updates in my email from some compiler publishers such as
DDC-I.   I don't consider it spam since I want to know what is happening
with Ada compiler publishers.   Since I hear from DDC-I on a regular
basis, I also tend to recommend them to clients when I know they have
a product that conforms to my client's needs.

I also get regular input from folks at ACT.  Ever since Dave Wood left
Aonix, I get nothing from them.   I see nothing of them.   They seem to
have vanished.  It would not hurt for these Ada compiler publishers to
escalate their visibility among those who are actually Ada advocates,
even if they are reluctant to risk offending those who are not by acknowledging

that, yes, they do support Ada products.

Rational, in particular, has become a sad case.   They built their business on
an Ada business model, made a lot of money on Ada, and now behave as if their
Ada past is something of an embarassment.

We at AdaWorks continue to believe Ada is the best programming language for
a wide range of applications and that is why we have the name of the language
in the name of our company.   The same is apparently true of Ada Core
Technologies.
We don't believe anyone needs to be embarassed about a business model openly
based
on Ada.   A little more openess might just help change some minds about its
viability
in the larger marketplace.

Richard Riehle
richard@adaworks.com


David Humphris wrote:

> DuckE <nospam_steved94@home.com> wrote in message
> news:q_O27.328129$p33.6632851@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
> > "Ed Falis" <efalis@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > news:3B4B613B.25659225@mediaone.net...
> >
> > As an ObjectAda user it is my opinion that the lack of success of Aonix'
> > windows product likely has little to do with wanting the support of
> 5-digit
> > development systems.
> >
> > Unless support means providing a usable debugger with the system.  Until
> > version 7.1.2 the debugger was a bad joke.  Still with 7.2 the debugger
> has
> > some problems (though few).
> >
> > When a debugger doesn't allow you to set breakpoints or exammine the
> content
> > of arrays of data, or just as bad, incorrectly displays data, it is very
> > frustrating.  Frustrating enough to move to a different development
> > environment.  Sometimes frustrating enough to move to a different
> > programming language that provides a debugging enviroment that works.
> >
> > In order for ObjectAda to succeed it must be a solid product, and it must
> > continue to grow and improve.  Unfortunately, about the same time what I
> > believe is the first viable version of the product was delivered (OA 7.2)
> > Aonix apparently decided that it was not a product worth the significant
> > continued investment to to improve.
>
> This is not the case.
>
> Aonix continues to take the Ada products, including ObjectAda for Windows,
> forward with new versions.
>
> In fact a new version of ObjectAda for Windows (7.2.1) is due for release
> in a couple of months time.  One of the focuses of this product is to make
> improvements in the debugger robustness and functionality.
>
> David Humphris
> Aonix
>
> > SteveD

Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)

[Greg Bek]

From: Lao Xiao Hai (laoxhai@ix.netcom.com)  wrote: 

>Now, is Rational still in the Ada business?   And are they planning to
>let the rest of world know they are?   Are they improving their Ada
>products?   Do they plan to let those of us in the Ada community know
>about their upgraded products?   Some of us might be interested.

Yes Rational is still in the Ada business.  If you check the certified
compiler listings you will find we are the only vendor to have
certified to the latest ACATS test suite with our 4.0 set of releases

Greg Bek
Product Manager for Apex
Rational Software