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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: 103376,995c28f68b9dc343 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,995c28f68b9dc343 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,995c28f68b9dc343 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,995c28f68b9dc343 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 107d55,995c28f68b9dc343 X-Google-Attributes: gid107d55,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: The great Java showcase (re: 2nd historic mistake) Date: 1997/09/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 270007202 References: <5u5m5b$7q6$1@news2.digex.net> <340C6785.9F0@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.java.tech,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-09-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Wes says <> listen harder!! This must mean that they have some requirements that they are not articulating clearly. For example, they prefer software written by a big company like Microsoft, or they feel more comfortable using tools that everyone else uses. These are requirements that are just as important to people as simply looking at technical aspects. Why do people pay Bayer large amounts of money for simple chemicals that are available much cheaper from others -- well they feel more comfortable that they are really getting what they want with the Bayer name behind it, and of course Bayer spends large amounts of money convincing people that they feel this way (which does not necessarily mean that it is in an inappropriate attitude). Yes, it's sometimes frustrating that customers seem to make "illogical" decisions. We often see people using Ada technologies that purely in technical terms seem clearly inferior to GNAT by any objective analysis. But there are many reasons for this. Often it is simply a matter of personal relationships, if you have dealt with person X for a long time, and trust them, and they have not let you down in the past, then it's not at all unreasonable to depend more on that trust than on the current technical state of tools. Being in business is all about understanding how all these factors work together and understanding not just the technical needs of customers, but their complete set of requirements, and identifying the cases where you can meet that complete set of requirements. We often end up suggesting people look at some other Ada technology if we feel that, considering all the requirements in this general sense, the customer might be better off with some non-GNAT solution. Of course, being a service and support company, rather than a "heres-the-shrink-wrapped- software-take-it-and-pay-for-it" business, we probably work harder to make sure that we *do* meet all the needs of customers, since we need them to feel they are getting value for their support contracts! Anyway, as I say, I understand the frustration, many projects that could be more successful if written in Ada are not, and those of us who know that spend a lot of time asking ourselves how that can be fixed. Well the answer is that it cannot be fixed generally, and the important thing is to concentrate on an incremental approach, where you make sure that current use of Ada *is* successful, and rather gradually increase the awareness of these successes. I don't see any other approach that will work! Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies