Re: Is the "Ada mandate" being reconsidered?

[gwinn@res.ray.com (Joe Gwinn)]

I guess I am not convinced that freeware, although certainly useful, is
anything I would normally choose to bet my project on.  Gnu C seems to be
the sole exception.  And, development of industrial-strength tool suites
requires industrial-strength cashflow.


In article <9606212019.AA11075@eight-ball>, Bob Crispen
<revbob@EIGHT-BALL.HV.BOEING.COM> wrote:

> Joe Gwinn <gwinn@RES.RAY.COM> sez:
> 
> >For large-scale use, only a few vendors survive, and consolidations will
> >likely continue.  The Ada market is clearly shrinking.  I submit the only
> >metric that counts is aggregate revenue to the Ada compiler and tool
> >vendors, as the rate of further development of Ada depends on the size of
> >their food supply.  I don't have the revenue figures, but I bet someone on
> >this newsgroup does, and ask that the figures from 1983 to present be
> >posted.
> 
> I believe you're suggesting that we measure precisely the wrong thing.
> The existence of gnat (and the phenomenally good performance of gnat
> at this point in its history) has changed the marketplace.
> 
> Today compiler vendors don't have to keep a huge staff of compiler
> writers on the payroll.  That means that they can focus almost all their
> manpower on product differentiation (e.g., GUI builders, bindings,
> support for niche platforms) and on product support.
> 
> Thus, we could see fewer dollars changing hands, but still have a very
> healthy Ada environment.
> 
> Gnat has also spawned a small horde of hobbyists who'll never pay a
> cent for their gnat compilers, but who may one day become a truly
> significant force for Ada.  Looking at the bucks ignores every single
> one of these people.
> 
> Gross revenues, like lines of source code, are easy to measure.  But
> that doesn't mean they're *worth* measuring.
> 
> Bob.Crispen@boeing.com
> Speaking for myself, not my company