* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-10 18:39 ` Michael P. Card
@ 2001-07-10 20:10 ` Ed Falis
2001-07-10 20:46 ` Ted Dennison
` (2 more replies)
2001-07-10 20:26 ` Ted Dennison
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 3 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Ed Falis @ 2001-07-10 20:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
"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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-10 20:10 ` Ed Falis
@ 2001-07-10 20:46 ` Ted Dennison
2001-07-10 20:54 ` Ed Falis
2001-07-10 21:10 ` Al Christians
2001-07-11 2:38 ` DuckE
2 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-07-10 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-10 20:46 ` Ted Dennison
@ 2001-07-10 20:54 ` Ed Falis
2001-07-10 21:15 ` Ted Dennison
0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Ed Falis @ 2001-07-10 20:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-10 20:54 ` Ed Falis
@ 2001-07-10 21:15 ` Ted Dennison
2001-07-10 21:29 ` Ed Falis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-07-10 21:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-10 20:10 ` Ed Falis
2001-07-10 20:46 ` Ted Dennison
@ 2001-07-10 21:10 ` Al Christians
2001-07-10 21:26 ` Marin David Condic
2001-07-10 21:26 ` Ed Falis
2001-07-11 2:38 ` DuckE
2 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Al Christians @ 2001-07-10 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-10 21:10 ` Al Christians
@ 2001-07-10 21:26 ` Marin David Condic
2001-07-10 21:26 ` Ed Falis
1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Marin David Condic @ 2001-07-10 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-10 21:10 ` Al Christians
2001-07-10 21:26 ` Marin David Condic
@ 2001-07-10 21:26 ` Ed Falis
2001-07-10 21:48 ` Ted Dennison
2001-07-10 21:56 ` Marin David Condic
1 sibling, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Ed Falis @ 2001-07-10 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-10 21:26 ` Ed Falis
@ 2001-07-10 21:48 ` Ted Dennison
2001-07-10 21:56 ` Marin David Condic
1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-07-10 21:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-10 21:26 ` Ed Falis
2001-07-10 21:48 ` Ted Dennison
@ 2001-07-10 21:56 ` Marin David Condic
2001-07-11 1:59 ` Ed Falis
1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Marin David Condic @ 2001-07-10 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
"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/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-10 21:56 ` Marin David Condic
@ 2001-07-11 1:59 ` Ed Falis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Ed Falis @ 2001-07-11 1:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-10 20:10 ` Ed Falis
2001-07-10 20:46 ` Ted Dennison
2001-07-10 21:10 ` Al Christians
@ 2001-07-11 2:38 ` DuckE
2001-07-11 21:00 ` Ed Falis
2001-07-12 8:03 ` David Humphris
2 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: DuckE @ 2001-07-11 2:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
"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
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-11 2:38 ` DuckE
@ 2001-07-11 21:00 ` Ed Falis
2001-07-12 1:42 ` DuckE
2001-07-12 8:03 ` David Humphris
1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Ed Falis @ 2001-07-11 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-11 21:00 ` Ed Falis
@ 2001-07-12 1:42 ` DuckE
0 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: DuckE @ 2001-07-12 1:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
"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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-11 2:38 ` DuckE
2001-07-11 21:00 ` Ed Falis
@ 2001-07-12 8:03 ` David Humphris
2001-07-13 2:43 ` DuckE
2001-07-20 7:49 ` Lao Xiao Hai
1 sibling, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: David Humphris @ 2001-07-12 8:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-12 8:03 ` David Humphris
@ 2001-07-13 2:43 ` DuckE
2001-07-23 21:53 ` Greg Bek
2001-07-20 7:49 ` Lao Xiao Hai
1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: DuckE @ 2001-07-13 2:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
"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
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-13 2:43 ` DuckE
@ 2001-07-23 21:53 ` Greg Bek
0 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Greg Bek @ 2001-07-23 21:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-12 8:03 ` David Humphris
2001-07-13 2:43 ` DuckE
@ 2001-07-20 7:49 ` Lao Xiao Hai
1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Lao Xiao Hai @ 2001-07-20 7:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-10 18:39 ` Michael P. Card
2001-07-10 20:10 ` Ed Falis
@ 2001-07-10 20:26 ` Ted Dennison
2001-07-10 20:39 ` Al Christians
2001-07-11 0:33 ` Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
3 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Ted Dennison @ 2001-07-10 20:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-10 18:39 ` Michael P. Card
2001-07-10 20:10 ` Ed Falis
2001-07-10 20:26 ` Ted Dennison
@ 2001-07-10 20:39 ` Al Christians
2001-07-10 20:42 ` Ed Falis
2001-07-10 21:11 ` Michael P. Card
2001-07-11 0:33 ` Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
3 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Al Christians @ 2001-07-10 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
"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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-10 20:39 ` Al Christians
@ 2001-07-10 20:42 ` Ed Falis
2001-07-10 20:53 ` Marin David Condic
2001-07-10 21:11 ` Michael P. Card
1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Ed Falis @ 2001-07-10 20:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-10 20:42 ` Ed Falis
@ 2001-07-10 20:53 ` Marin David Condic
0 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Marin David Condic @ 2001-07-10 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
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?
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* Re: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-10 20:39 ` Al Christians
2001-07-10 20:42 ` Ed Falis
@ 2001-07-10 21:11 ` Michael P. Card
1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Michael P. Card @ 2001-07-10 21:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
[-- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread
* RE: Death by analogy Part 2 (was Re: is ada dead?)
2001-07-10 18:39 ` Michael P. Card
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2001-07-10 20:39 ` Al Christians
@ 2001-07-11 0:33 ` Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
3 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Robert C. Leif, Ph.D. @ 2001-07-11 0:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: comp.lang.ada
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread