Re: Anybody in US using ADA ? New language competition? (long)

["Marin David Condic" <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org>]

We're probably at 99% agreement on most of what you've said. I think I'd
still differ on this one slightly. If somehow you had "all other things
being equal" to, for example, MSVC++, you'd still be at a disadvantage.
Suppose you had MSVAda++ that had the GUI builder, class libraries, etc.,
all for development on a Windows platform. Your sales pitch is: "All other
things are equal to MSVC++ ***PLUS*** you get added reliability..." I, as
the potential customer, go down this line of reasoning: Yes, some added
reliability and possibly some productivity improvement might be there
*eventually*, but I've already got some heavy investment in MSVC++. I've got
my personnel trained and I've got some extensive libraries of my own and
I've got processes built around MSVC++ and its tools, etc. Am I going to
realize *enough* improvement in my bottom line (profit) from switching to
MSVAda++ to make it worth the investment I'll have to make and the learning
curve I'll be up against (possibly delaying delivery of my next few
projects) or will the return on my investment be too small to offset that
cost?

Typically, I'd guess the answer is going to be "No" because that's what it
has been for twenty years - even back when compilers *didn't* come with huge
libraries and development tools. (There was a time when all other things
*were* equal between Ada and C (in some areas) - except possibly for price
and had Ada's "reliability" been a big enough concern, that would have
offset the price issue.)

Now if Ada waltzed in the door with bindings to everything and huge
libraries to compete with anything the other guys had and development tools
to make it just as easy to get an app running *AND* threw something else on
top that cut 50% of the development time for some domain (and then said: "Oh
yes. By the way. You're apps will be more reliable and cost less over time
as well.") it would be much more likely to make the sale. I just don't see
reliability and life cycle cost as having much success in the past, so I
think we ought to find and push another angle.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "I'd trade it all for just a little more"
        --  Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10]
======================================================================

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:3E1B12E0.60507@cogeco.ca...
>
> But, but.. this was my point... the "20 years+" of presenting the
> reliability case has not worked because all _other_ things were
> NOT equal. If they _WERE_, the reliability case might gain some
> ground.  But the "20 years+" has not worked because the other
> problem remained unsolved. If all other things are not near equal,
> nobody wants to care about "reliability". They are too focused on
> what they have to do (getting to market as you say).
>