From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,995c28f68b9dc343 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,995c28f68b9dc343 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 107d55,995c28f68b9dc343 X-Google-Attributes: gid107d55,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,995c28f68b9dc343 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,995c28f68b9dc343 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,995c28f68b9dc343 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) Date: 1997/08/29 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 268996983 References: <5u5m5b$7q6$1@news2.digex.net> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.java.tech,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-08-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ell said <> No you can't win with an inferior product, winning or success with products is how superiority is measured. The trouble is that technical people tend to think that wizz-bang technical features are what is important. No doubt the Sony guys working on Beta really thought that image quality was the most important factor -- it was of course NOT true, and the longer playing time of VHS was what consumers wanted. Technical people are always sitting around grumbling that consumers don t make the "right" choice, but usually such grumbling is just an expression of incompetence in their ability to figure out what is important. There are many reasons people buy product A over product B. They prefer a large company (which tends to get reflected by advertising clout), they like pretty packaging, they like being sure it will still be around a while from now, they don't want to feel they are experimenting etc etc etc. The fact that some technie thinks that super feature X is what is important is pretty irrelevant. I saw an interview with one of the guys from the MIT Media lab a few years ago, saying that he thought that HDTV was completely mis-directed. His question: "Ask someone on the street what is wrong with TV, they will not say 'lack of definition'". I always remember this, because I thought it was an excellent lesson in not focussing on technical excellence. This certainly applies in the field of computer programming languages. The mere fact that language X is superior to language Y is certainly not enough. The issues of continued support are critical. And indeed the effort in Ada 95 to concentrate on providing effective interfacing to other languages, something almost completely missing in most other languages, reflects the understanding that being able to interface to existing software components written in other languages is crucial. Often as CEO of ACT, I find that my most important task is to convince customers not that Ada is superior, they know that, but rather that they can choose Ada and be sure that support for Ada will be around in the future. Indeed our entire business plan at ACT is aimed at ensuring that this is the case. We concentrate entirely on Ada, and we intend to maintain a small low-overhead operation, allying ourselves with various tool producing companies, and working on making GNAT easy to deal with for the tool manufacturers. We believe that this is a convincing strategy for ensuring that the Ada technology, superior from a narrow language point of view, is also superior in other terms that may in the long run be equally important. Actually the entire free software approach is valuable here. We don't make our money by charging an arm and a leg up front, instead we are building are business by gathering customers who are interested in long term maintenance.