Ada is getting more popular!

Ada is getting more popular!

[Nasser M. Abbasi]

Ada has jumped in TIOBE index from 29 last year to 17 this year, well done.

It is now ranked 17, ahead of SAS and Matlab !


"The TIOBE Programming Community index is an indicator of the popularity 
of programming languages"

http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

--Nasser

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[ramon_garcia]

As a newcomer into Ada, perhaps I can have a useful point of view of
what makes it difficult to enter this language.

Here are my complains in decreasing order:

- Vendor dependency: there are few vendors of Ada products. It is
neccessary in practice to use vendor extensions to write useful
software. For instance, I must depend on array accesses in GNAT
containing both the addess and the bounds of the array. In addition, I
also depend on the implementation recomendation that array'adress
points to the first element. I also need the extension
object'unrestricted_pointer. Vendor dependency is increased by the
lack of a community. It does not work googling for an Ada issue, like
with Java or Linux APIs. This newsgroup is the only resource that I
have yet found. I don't have a problem for paying for using an Ada
tool. (I am writing free software at the moment, but perhaps not in
the future). But, how much? There is no pricing information in the
Adacore website, and if for whatever reason I have an unsuccessful
experience with them I have no alternative.

  My message to vendors is that it is more profitable to be the 10 %
of 100.000.000 sales than 100 % of 1000 sales. It is neccessary to
have a good free compiler and IDE to build a community.

- Complex language that requries plenty of typing. This can be avoided
with good developing environments that automate the task, like Eclipse
does for Java. Adacore's GPS is not too bad, but not nearly as
polished as Eclipse. At least I would expect to have an option "new
package" that defines a package spec and body. Or that declaring a
function in the spec creates an empty body (this is posible in Emacs,
but not in GPS, only creating all the body from all the spec with gnat-
stub rather than adding a function to the body from a new function to
the spec).

- Missing language features. Such a complex language must have design
issues. I find suprising that Object'Pool_Address extension from GNAT
is not standard. (It is a little inconsistent and bogus, by the way).
Some things are almost imposible or require difficult contorsions. For
instnace, I have not yet found a reasonable way to insert an array of
discriminated elements in a discriminated record. Something like

type my_container(counter: integer, discriminated_attribute: integer)
is record
   data: array(0..counter) of contained(discriminated_attribute);
end record;

This straightforward way is not posible because one cannot use an
anonymous array type inside a record (by the way, I find this feature
unjustified). But, even defining a type for the array does not work
because there is no way of passing the attribute from my_container to
the contained elements.

For instance, think about a data structure like

m, n: integer

m times:
    flaga: boolean;
    array of n bytes;

The desiable way of representing this model is imposible.

Of course, all of this can be solved with enough contorsions.

This is just an example of a particular issue that I find. The concept
is that a complex design has many rough edges.

On Oct 13, 9:15 am, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <n...@12000.org> wrote:
> Ada has jumped in TIOBE index from 29 last year to 17 this year, well done.
>
> It is now ranked 17, ahead of SAS and Matlab !
>
> "The TIOBE Programming Community index is an indicator of the popularity
> of programming languages"
>
> http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
>
> --Nasser

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 13.10.10 14:07, ramon_garcia wrote:
> type my_container(counter: integer, discriminated_attribute: integer)
> is record
>    data: array(0..counter) of contained(discriminated_attribute);
> end record;
> 
> This straightforward way is not posible because one cannot use an
> anonymous array type inside a record (by the way, I find this feature
> unjustified).

I think it's justified insofar as you can't have both separate
compilation and dope-free representation of My_Container.

procedure P(Simple : in out My_Container) is

   -- Problem: what's the address of Simple.Data(N)
   -- in case there are no dope vectors?

   Stuff : aliased constant My_Container(42, 27);
   for Stuff'Address use ...;

   type My_Container_Ptr is access My_Container;

   Other_Stuff : My_Container_Ptr;
begin
   Other_Stuff := new My_Container
     (Counter => Input_Func(...),
      Discriminated_Attribute => Input_Func(...));
end P;


Georg

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Mark Lorenzen]

On 13 Okt., 14:07, ramon_garcia <ramon.garci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> - Vendor dependency: there are few vendors of Ada products. It is
> neccessary in practice to use vendor extensions to write useful
> software. For instance, I must depend on array accesses in GNAT
> containing both the addess and the bounds of the array. In addition, I
> also depend on the implementation recomendation that array'adress
> points to the first element. I also need the extension
> object'unrestricted_pointer.

Could you please give some examples of why you need to rely on theese
vendor-specific choices.

Regards,
- Mark L

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:51:19 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 13.10.10 14:07, ramon_garcia wrote:
>> type my_container(counter: integer, discriminated_attribute: integer)
>> is record
>>    data: array(0..counter) of contained(discriminated_attribute);
>> end record;
>> 
>> This straightforward way is not posible because one cannot use an
>> anonymous array type inside a record (by the way, I find this feature
>> unjustified).
> 
> I think it's justified insofar as you can't have both separate
> compilation and dope-free representation of My_Container.

Note that the following is perfectly legal:

   type My_Container (Counter : Natural) is record
       Data : String (1..Counter);
   end record;

The issue has nothing to do with array dopes. The problem is that arrays
may not have discriminants. Therefore you cannot constrain an array
otherwise than in its bounds. If arrays had discriminants, OP could achieve
his goal:

   type Not_A_Ragged_Array (Length : Natural) is
       array (Positive range <>) of String (1..Length);
   type My_Container (Counter : Natural, Length : Natural) is record
       Data : Not_A_Ragged_Array (Length, 1..Counter);
   end record;

[ I wonder that OP complaints about features (constrained types) of which
other languages lack slightest traces. ]

> procedure P(Simple : in out My_Container) is
> 
>    -- Problem: what's the address of Simple.Data(N)
>    -- in case there are no dope vectors?

Maybe Simple.Data(N) does not have a unique address at all. Why should you
care how does the compiler pack arrays? 

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Jeffrey Carter]

On 10/13/2010 05:07 AM, ramon_garcia wrote:
>
> - Vendor dependency: there are few vendors of Ada products. It is
> neccessary in practice to use vendor extensions to write useful
> software. For instance, I must depend on array accesses in GNAT
> containing both the addess and the bounds of the array. In addition, I
> also depend on the implementation recomendation that array'adress
> points to the first element. I also need the extension
> object'unrestricted_pointer.

If you think you need to rely on this, it is extremely likely that there is 
something you don't understand.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"You a big nose have it."
Never Give a Sucker an Even Break
107

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[mockturtle]

On Oct 13, 8:01 pm, Jeffrey Carter
<spam.jrcarter....@spam.not.acm.org> wrote:
> On 10/13/2010 05:07 AM, ramon_garcia wrote:
>
>
>
> > - Vendor dependency: there are few vendors of Ada products. It is
> > neccessary in practice to use vendor extensions to write useful
> > software. For instance, I must depend on array accesses in GNAT
> > containing both the addess and the bounds of the array. In addition, I
> > also depend on the implementation recomendation that array'adress
> > points to the first element. I also need the extension
> > object'unrestricted_pointer.
>
> If you think you need to rely on this, it is extremely likely that there is
> something you don't understand.

I agree.  I do not consider myself as an Ada expert, but I have some
experience and I never needed so far the extensions you refer to.  I
remember that one time I thought that I needed to get the "pointer" to
a variable, but I was a beginner at the time.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Vinzent Hoefler]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:07:13 +0200, ramon_garcia <ramon.garcia.f@gmail.com> wrote:

> - Vendor dependency: there are few vendors of Ada products. It is
> neccessary in practice to use vendor extensions to write useful
> software.

Then you are most probably doing something wrong.

> For instance, I must depend on array accesses in GNAT
> containing both the addess and the bounds of the array.

Why?

> In addition, I
> also depend on the implementation recomendation that array'adress
> points to the first element.

I don't get it. From what you describe it seems you are programming
C-style. I've never used 'Address except for hardware-dependent and
thus inherently unportable stuff.

> - Complex language that requries plenty of typing.

That's by design. Actually, I like it. It makes reading the source code
so much easier.

> At least I would expect to have an option "new package" that defines
> a package spec and body.

Huh? For these four lines? And if you really need that, write a small
Python plug-in. ;)

Something along the lines:

-- 8< --
def Create_Package (Name):
    Spec_File = GPS.File (Name + ".ads")
    Spec_File.set_property ("language", "ada")
    Editor = GPS.EditorBuffer.get(Spec_File)
    Start  = Editor.beginning_of_buffer()
    Editor.insert (Start, '\n'.join ([' '.join (["package", Name, "is"]), ' '.join (["end", Name]) + ";"]))
    Editor.save()

    Body_File = GPS.File (Name + ".adb")
    Body_File.set_property ("language", "ada")
    Editor = GPS.EditorBuffer.get(Body_File)
    Start  = Editor.beginning_of_buffer()
    Editor.insert (Start, '\n'.join ([' '.join (["package", "body", Name, "is"]), ' '.join (["end", Name]) + ";"]))
    Editor.save()
-- 8< --

> Or that declaring a
> function in the spec creates an empty body (this is posible in Emacs,
> but not in GPS, only creating all the body from all the spec with gnat-
> stub rather than adding a function to the body from a new function to
> the spec).

Same here. I'm too lazy to write a script for that right now.

> - Missing language features. Such a complex language must have design
> issues. I find suprising that Object'Pool_Address extension from GNAT
> is not standard. (It is a little inconsistent and bogus, by the way).
> Some things are almost imposible or require difficult contorsions. For
> instnace, I have not yet found a reasonable way to insert an array of
> discriminated elements in a discriminated record. Something like
>
> type my_container(counter: integer, discriminated_attribute: integer)
> is record
>    data: array(0..counter) of contained(discriminated_attribute);
> end record;

The to-be-inserted record type must have a default discriminant.

type Disc_Array is array (Positive range <>) of Discriminated_Record;

type My_Container (Counter : Positive) is
    record
       Data : Disc_Array (1 .. Counter);
    end record;

That should do the trick. Of course, you need to have an initialization
operation then and the array elements may have different discriminants.

> This straightforward way is not posible because one cannot use an
> anonymous array type inside a record (by the way, I find this feature
> unjustified).

Well, considering that you probably want to operate on the array in
some way or another it must have a type. Otherwise you can't declare
operations for it. So, not allowing anonymous array types has some
value here.

> But, even defining a type for the array does not work
> because there is no way of passing the attribute from my_container to
> the contained elements.

Yes, because it has to be static. See above.

> For instance, think about a data structure like
>
> m, n: integer
>
> m times:
>     flaga: boolean;
>     array of n bytes;
>
> The desiable way of representing this model is imposible.

No. It's just not possible in the way you'd like to shove it
up the compiler's butt. ;)

> This is just an example of a particular issue that I find. The concept
> is that a complex design has many rough edges.

It has something to do with compilability. If the compiler can't figure
out the size for the object, it can't create it. So there's no point in
allowing arbitrary constructs.


Vinzent.

-- 
There is no signature.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[ramon_garcia]

> If you think you need to rely on this, it is extremely likely that there is
> something you don't understand.
>

I have a record with an array member constrained. I want to obtain an
unconstrained accesss, because I want to return it in a procedure. I
want to return an access, because returning an array implies a copy.
And I want the caller to get the bounds of the returned access at
runtime.

type buffer is array(Natural range<>) of Unsigned_8;
type buffer_access is access all buffer;

type t is record
   data: buffer(1..4);
end record;

a_t: t := .....;

abuf_access := a_t.data'Unrestricted_Access;

Note that this has two dependencies with GNAT:
 - Access to arrays use double pointers. So in the obtained access one
can obtain the bounds correctly, with abuf_access'First,
abuf_access'Last.

 - The attribute Unrestricted_Access.

I cannot understand why a procedure that expects an unconstrained
array can be passed a constrained one, and it is not possible to get
an access to an unconstrained array from a constrained one.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Simon Wright]

ramon_garcia <ramon.garcia.f@gmail.com> writes:

> This newsgroup is the only resource that I have yet found.

See StackOverflow (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/ada and
http://stackoverflow.com/tags/ada/info, linked from the first) for a
handy resource & set of links to other resources.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Vinzent Hoefler]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 23:53:14 +0200, ramon_garcia <ramon.garcia.f@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have a record with an array member constrained. I want to obtain an
> unconstrained accesss, because I want to return it in a procedure. I
> want to return an access, because returning an array implies a copy.

Huh? Since when do "out" parameters imply a copy?

> And I want the caller to get the bounds of the returned access at
> runtime.

I don't understand that. Either you are creating the array
dynamically, then getting an access to it should not be a problem
or the caller already knows the bounds.

> type buffer is array(Natural range<>) of Unsigned_8;
> type buffer_access is access all buffer;
>
> type t is record
>    data: buffer(1..4);

There an "aliased" would be missing.

> end record;
>
> a_t: t := .....;
>
> abuf_access := a_t.data'Unrestricted_Access;
>
> Note that this has two dependencies with GNAT:
>  - Access to arrays use double pointers. So in the obtained access one
> can obtain the bounds correctly, with abuf_access'First,
> abuf_access'Last.

This is not GNAT specific. An access type is guaranteed to work
correctly here. An *address* OTOH may not, but that's different
anyway.

>  - The attribute Unrestricted_Access.
>
> I cannot understand why a procedure that expects an unconstrained
> array can be passed a constrained one,

Because every array is constrained at the point of the call. There
are no unconstrained array objects.

> and it is not possible to get
> an access to an unconstrained array from a constrained one.

It is. But not if it's explicitly constrained (by index constraints).
Unfortunately, this is the only way to do it inside a record.


Vinzent.

-- 
There is no signature.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Nasser M. Abbasi]

On 10/13/2010 3:34 PM, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:

>
> I don't understand that. Either you are creating the array
> dynamically, then getting an access to it should not be a problem
> or the caller already knows the bounds.
>

I get the impression that Mr ramon_garcia is trying to use Ada as C.

Better to use Ada as Ada, makes life simpler :)

--Nasser

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[ramon_garcia]

On Oct 14, 12:34 am, "Vinzent Hoefler" <nntp-2010...@t-
domaingrabbing.de> wrote:
> Huh? Since when do "out" parameters imply a copy?

If the size is determinated at runtime, the caller cannot know the
size in advance, and cannot allocate it. In fact, GNAT has a
"secondary stack" for returning variable-size objects.

> I don't understand that. Either you are creating the array
> dynamically, then getting an access to it should not be a problem
> or the caller already knows the bounds.

The array was created statically, but I do not want code in the caller
to depend on that.

Or a container record was created dynamically, and the size of the
array is part of the discriminant.

type container(n_elemen: natural) is record
     a: buffer(n_elemen);
end record;

Imagine that this type is defined in the private part of the package.
A method is provided to obtain an access to the buffer, and from that
access the bounds of the array can be obtained at run time. This is
not posible in general.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[ramon_garcia]

It is simply that I need to perform low level tasks, such as accessing
a memory mapped file.

> I get the impression that Mr ramon_garcia is trying to use Ada as C.
>
> Better to use Ada as Ada, makes life simpler :)
>
> --Nasser

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Vinzent Hoefler]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 00:49:40 +0200, ramon_garcia <ramon.garcia.f@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 14, 12:34 am, "Vinzent Hoefler" <nntp-2010...@t-
> domaingrabbing.de> wrote:
>> Huh? Since when do "out" parameters imply a copy?
>
> If the size is determinated at runtime, the caller cannot know the
> size in advance, and cannot allocate it. In fact, GNAT has a
> "secondary stack" for returning variable-size objects.

For functions returning such types, yes. Not for procedures.

>> I don't understand that. Either you are creating the array
>> dynamically, then getting an access to it should not be a problem
>> or the caller already knows the bounds.
>
> The array was created statically, but I do not want code in the caller
> to depend on that.

type Buffer        is array (Positive range <>) of ...;
type Buffer_Access is access all Buffer;

A : Buffer        := (1 .. 4 => ...);
P : Buffer_Access := A'Access;

should work, while

A : Buffer (1 .. 4);
P : Buffer_Access := A'Access;

does not.

> Or a container record was created dynamically, and the size of the
> array is part of the discriminant.
>
> type container(n_elemen: natural) is record
>      a: buffer(n_elemen);
> end record;

In that case you lose, because you cannot create A without explicit
bounds. And with explicit bounds, the x.A'Access won't do.

> Imagine that this type is defined in the private part of the package.
> A method is provided to obtain an access to the buffer, and from that
> access the bounds of the array can be obtained at run time. This is
> not posible in general.

Why don't you provide access to the record then?


Vinzent.

-- 
There is no signature.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Jeffrey Carter]

On 10/13/2010 04:00 PM, ramon_garcia wrote:
> It is simply that I need to perform low level tasks, such as accessing
> a memory mapped file.

You need to understand Ada better before attempting such things.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"You a big nose have it."
Never Give a Sucker an Even Break
107

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 10/14/10 1:00 AM, ramon_garcia wrote:
> It is simply that I need to perform low level tasks, such as accessing
> a memory mapped file.

Since you can't get a pointer to unconstrained from a constrained
object(*), but you can bring data and processing subprograms
together. The different solution will remove GNAT dependences.

(Yes, copying might happen if an out parameter is initialized
by assigning components from another array. But the scenario
is different below.)

Use case:
If a pointer to unconstrained would be intended for obtaining
access to the data array (with correct bounds), this access
determines the use case, what is to be done with what.

Then instead of asking for a pointer at the "client" side,
invert control.

Have the client provide a callback procedure that takes an
unconstrained array, to be passed to the "server" side (where
the data record is defined now). Either use generics or
use access subprogram types (similar to updating subprograms
of Ada.Containers.*).

Example:

   -- client side:
   procedure Want_Bytes (Data : in out Buffer);
    -- perform some action on the bytes in Data
    -- Note: Data needs *not* be copied

   -- server side:
   generic
      with procedure do_something (data : in out Buffer);
   procedure process;
    -- instances will invoke do_something with a data buffer


   -- client side:
   procedure step is new Process (do_something => Want_Bytes);


   -- server side, body:
   procedure process is
   begin
      do_something (a_t.data);
   end process;

   -- client side:
   step;


This is plain Ada and will very likely avoid copying.
No pointers or aliases are needed.  It's efficient, too.

Extending, so as to have a container record from just anywhere,

   -- server side:
   generic
      with procedure do_something (data : in out Buffer);
   procedure Process (Info : in out Container);
    -- instances will invoke do_something, passing Info.data

    ...
   step (my_container_object);
__
(*) http://www.adapower.com/index.php?Command=Class&ClassID=Advanced&CID=213

>> I get the impression that Mr ramon_garcia is trying to use Ada as C.
>>
>> Better to use Ada as Ada, makes life simpler :)
>>
>> --Nasser
>

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[tmoran]

If you assume that Ada was designed by dolts who didn't care about things
like memory mapped arrays, or efficiency, then you will spend your time
fighting the Ada compiler, trying to do things in your old ways.  If you
assume instead that Ada was designed by bright people for use in embedded
systems where access to the hardware, and efficiency, are common
requirements, and that millions of lines of such applications are running
quite successfully, then you should ask yourself how you, too, can benefit
from using Ada features to attack your problems.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Simon Wright]

"Vinzent Hoefler" <nntp-2010-10@t-domaingrabbing.de> writes:

> In that case you lose, because you cannot create A without explicit
> bounds. And with explicit bounds, the x.A'Access won't do.

But, as OP noted, you can use GNAT's 'Unrestricted_Access.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Simon Wright]

Jeffrey Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> writes:

> If Data is declared aliased, then 'Unrestricted_Access is not needed.

It is in this case (GCC 4.5.0).

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Vinzent Hoefler]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 06:59:40 +0200, Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> wrote:

> "Vinzent Hoefler" <nntp-2010-10@t-domaingrabbing.de> writes:
>
>> In that case you lose, because you cannot create A without explicit
>> bounds. And with explicit bounds, the x.A'Access won't do.
>
> But, as OP noted, you can use GNAT's 'Unrestricted_Access.

Which is want I meant with "you lose" (compiler independence).


Vinzent.

-- 
There is no signature.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Vinzent Hoefler]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:45:35 +0200, Vinzent Hoefler <nntp-2010-10@t-domaingrabbing.de> wrote:

> Which is want I meant with "you lose" (compiler independence).

s/want/what/

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Robert A Duff]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> [ I wonder that OP complaints about features (constrained types) of which
> other languages lack slightest traces. ]

Well, yeah, but maybe the OP is comparing Ada to what he thinks it
should be, rather than comparing it to some other language(s).
That's not entirely unreasonable, and I do it myself from
time to time.  So do you -- for example complaining that Ada
doesn't do multi-dispatch right, when in fact no language
does (it's a hard problem).

- Bob

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:10:23 -0400, Robert A Duff wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> 
>> [ I wonder that OP complaints about features (constrained types) of which
>> other languages lack slightest traces. ]
> 
> Well, yeah, but maybe the OP is comparing Ada to what he thinks it
> should be, rather than comparing it to some other language(s).
> That's not entirely unreasonable, and I do it myself from
> time to time.  So do you -- for example complaining that Ada
> doesn't do multi-dispatch right, when in fact no language
> does (it's a hard problem).

Agreed.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

ramon_garcia <ramon.garcia.f@gmail.com> writes:

[ Please don't top post. ]

> It is simply that I need to perform low level tasks, such as accessing
> a memory mapped file.

There is not a single bit of compiler dependent code needed for that.

You use the package POSIX.Memory_Maps to map the file into memory.

You use "for The_Mapped_Object'Address use Address_Of_Memory_Map;" to
make sure you access the mapped object at the right location in memory.
Not a single bit of compiler dependence there.

Greetings,

Jacob
-- 
"I'm going as a barrel of toxic waste!"

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:07:13 +0200, ramon_garcia  
<ramon.garcia.f@gmail.com> a écrit:

> As a newcomer into Ada, perhaps I can have a useful point of view of
> what makes it difficult to enter this language.
>
> Here are my complains in decreasing order:
>
> - Vendor dependency: there are few vendors of Ada products.
Surprisingly, you did not explicitly noticed the higher complexity of the  
language, compared to C, Pascal and others ? If designing a C compiler was  
more complex, then there would be as much less C compilers in the place.

> I don't have a problem for paying for using an Ada
> tool.
Some can say that, but just too few, that is why very little people will  
attempt to go and expect some clients. But we are in another area there :  
GPL efficiently killed little companies and standalone developers and  
created such a context that only big company could stay alive… indeed a  
trouble there. That was just to say why your confession is tiny thing in  
the middle of a desert : no one will go in that desert for a single people  
waiting for them there.

> (I am writing free software at the moment, but perhaps not in
> the future). But, how much? There is no pricing information in the
> Adacore website,
I noticed the same. I agree this is not good commercial practice to not  
display pricing (while this may means this is subject to negotiations).  
Most commonly, prices are not displayed when this is high. And with  
AdaCore, this is high. But some are far less expensive, at least there is  
one, RRSoftware and its Janus Ada (I am afraid this is the only one).

> and if for whatever reason I have an unsuccessful
> experience with them I have no alternative.
The same with GCC. That's true not only with commercial vendors. The area  
of choices is narrow here, as much as it is difficult to go to try to  
become a vendor (for the reason exposed above).

> My message to vendors is that it is more profitable to be the 10 %
> of 100.000.000 sales than 100 % of 1000 sales. It is neccessary to
> have a good free compiler and IDE to build a community.
Not sure I've understood this one. 10% of 100.000.000 sales with a free  
IDE ?

> - Complex language that requries plenty of typing. This can be avoided
> with good developing environments that automate the task, like Eclipse
> does for Java. Adacore's GPS is not too bad, but not nearly as
> polished as Eclipse. At least I would expect to have an option "new
> package" that defines a package spec and body.
In GPS, you may create Python plug-in for that.

> Or that declaring a
> function in the spec creates an empty body
You have GNATStub for that.

> - Missing language features. Such a complex language must have design
> issues. I find suprising that Object'Pool_Address extension from GNAT
> is not standard.
You are, and every one is welcome to submit comment to ada-  
comment@ada-auth.org
Providing you make a robust enough suggestion, with rationals, discussion,  
etc.


-- 
Si les chats miaules et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Fri, 15 Oct 2010 14:12:16 +0200, Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk>  
a écrit:

> ramon_garcia <ramon.garcia.f@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [ Please don't top post. ]
>
>> It is simply that I need to perform low level tasks, such as accessing
>> a memory mapped file.
>
> There is not a single bit of compiler dependent code needed for that.
>
> You use the package POSIX.Memory_Maps to map the file into memory.
>
> You use "for The_Mapped_Object'Address use Address_Of_Memory_Map;" to
> make sure you access the mapped object at the right location in memory.
> Not a single bit of compiler dependence there.

Providing you have a POSIX library which provide it. I know an Ada POSIX  
for Windows, which is
http://pascal.obry.pagesperso-orange.fr/w32posix.html
But this lack this feature.

-- 
Si les chats miaules et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:20:44 +0200, <tmoran@acm.org> a écrit:

> If you assume that Ada was designed by dolts who didn't care about things
What does means “dolts” here ?

-- 
Si les chats miaules et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 10/24/10 11:21 PM, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
> Le Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:07:13 +0200, ramon_garcia <ramon.garcia.f@gmail.com> a écrit:

(Do others see normal paragraphs by ramon_garcia and very
long single lines (i.e., not paragraphs) in Yannick's response,
too?)

>> I don't have a problem for paying for using an Ada
>> tool.
> But we are in another area there : GPL efficiently killed little companies and standalone developers

First, I doubt that this was the GPL; some businesses might
have suffered from the GMGPL.

Care to mention a few numbers, or even company names if possible,
that were killed by GNAT alone?

As for existing companies offering compilers,  you have mentioned
RRSoftware, there are more Ada companies, some of them offer
compilers at quite the usual prices. You'll have to ask, though.

Note that even the Occasional Price Dumping Company sells Pro (i.e.
commercial use) editions of their tools at min $799, and wants >= $1,199
with MSDN subscription.


> The area of choices is narrow here.

Just to put compiler availability in perspective:

We may choose among C# compilers from ...
We may choose among Objective-C compilers from ...
We may choose Fortran compilers targeting ARM from ...
...

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 10/25/10 12:15 AM, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
> Le Thu, 14 Oct 2010 04:20:44 +0200, <tmoran@acm.org> a écrit:
>
>> If you assume that Ada was designed by dolts who didn't care about things
> What does means “dolts” here ?
>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dolt

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:12:20 +0200, Georg Bauhaus  
<rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de> a écrit:
> (Do others see normal paragraphs by ramon_garcia and very
> long single lines (i.e., not paragraphs) in Yannick's response,
> too?)
May be something wrong with my news-reader (I did not noticed). Will look  
for it. Apologizes for any inconveniences.

-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:12:20 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 10/24/10 11:21 PM, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:
>> But we are in another area there : GPL efficiently killed little companies and standalone developers
> 
> First, I doubt that this was the GPL; some businesses might
> have suffered from the GMGPL.
> 
> Care to mention a few numbers, or even company names if possible,
> that were killed by GNAT alone?

They weren't killed, they moved into different business. It is the market
of compilers which was killed.

> As for existing companies offering compilers,  you have mentioned
> RRSoftware, there are more Ada companies, some of them offer
> compilers at quite the usual prices. You'll have to ask, though.

I doubt that there is a single company which earns anything from selling
compilers. Those who sell or give compilers for free refund from somewhere
else.

This model (also known from Socialism) is not sustainable, so we are
observing the number of compilers for all languages declining, not just for
Ada.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 10/25/10 9:52 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:12:20 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

>> As for existing companies offering compilers,  you have mentioned
>> RRSoftware, there are more Ada companies, some of them offer
>> compilers at quite the usual prices. You'll have to ask, though.
>
> I doubt that there is a single company which earns anything from selling
> compilers. Those who sell or give compilers for free refund from somewhere
> else.

Support, seminars, standard libraries on request, targeting
new platforms, and all forms of consultancy, as sources of
income,you mean?

> This model (also known from Socialism) is not sustainable, so we are
> observing the number of compilers for all languages declining, not just for
> Ada.

Again, I'll welcome some interesting numbers.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:07:35 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 10/25/10 9:52 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:12:20 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
>>> As for existing companies offering compilers,  you have mentioned
>>> RRSoftware, there are more Ada companies, some of them offer
>>> compilers at quite the usual prices. You'll have to ask, though.
>>
>> I doubt that there is a single company which earns anything from selling
>> compilers. Those who sell or give compilers for free refund from somewhere
>> else.
> 
> Support, seminars, standard libraries on request, targeting
> new platforms, and all forms of consultancy, as sources of
> income,you mean?

[harmful, at best useless] tool chains, subscriptions to bug fixing,
projects unrelated to compiler design, and, yes, consultancy. At this point
I can but resist to cite this story from J. R. Stern:

"Once upon a time there was a shepherd tending his sheep at
the edge of a country road. A brand new Jeep Grand Cherokee
screeches to a halt next to him. The driver, a young man
dressed in a Brioni suit, Cerrutti shoes, Ray-Ban glasses,
Jovial Swiss wrist watch and a Bhs tie, gets out and asks
the shepherd:

"If I guess how many sheep you have, will you give me one
of them?" The shepherd looks at the young man, then looks
at the sprawling field of sheep and says: "Okay."

The young man parks the SUV, connects his notebook and
wireless modem, enters a NASA site, scans the ground using
his GPS, opens a database and 60 Excel tables filled with
algorithms, then prints a 150 page report on his high tech
mini printer. He then turns to the shepherd and says: "You
have exactly 1,586 sheep here."

The shepherd answers: "That's correct, you can have your
sheep." The young man takes one of the animals and puts it
in the back of his vehicle. The shepherd looks at him and
asks: "Now, if I guess your profession, will you pay me
back in kind?"

The young man answers: "Sure." The shepherd says: "You are
a consultant." "Exactly!  How did you know," asks the young
man?

"Very simple," answers the shepherd. "First, you came here
without being called. Second, you charged me a fee to tell
me something I already knew. Third, you do not understand
anything about my business, and I'd really like to have my
dog back." 

>> This model (also known from Socialism) is not sustainable, so we are
>> observing the number of compilers for all languages declining, not just for
>> Ada.
> 
> Again, I'll welcome some interesting numbers.

Want me run a study why wealth re-distribution creates poverty? (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Ludovic Brenta]

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote on comp.lang.ada:
> They weren't killed, they moved into different business. It is the market
> of compilers which was killed [by the GPL].

I differ.  In the particular case of Ada, I doubt there woult be any
market at all if it weren't for the zero-cost editions of GNAT.  These
attract younger developers and make Ada visible.  Personally, I think
the GPL saved the market of Ada compilers.  Maybe the same effect
could
have been achieved with non-free compilers at low cost (less than 100
EUR) but the competition from other languages with zero-cost compilers
for other languages might have killed the Ada market entirely.

>> As for existing companies offering compilers,  you have mentioned
>> RRSoftware, there are more Ada companies, some of them offer
>> compilers at quite the usual prices. You'll have to ask, though.
>
> I doubt that there is a single company which earns anything from selling
> compilers. Those who sell or give compilers for free refund from somewhere
> else.
>
> This model (also known from Socialism) is not sustainable, so we are
> observing the number of compilers for all languages declining, not just for
> Ada.

I don't see what the "sell services, not software" model has to do
with
socialism.  And this model seems to be more than sustainable for
AdaCore;
this is probably because they made the concious decision *not* to
address
the SOHO market (i.e. high volume, low margins) at all.

--
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:47:38 -0700 (PDT), Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote on comp.lang.ada:
>> They weren't killed, they moved into different business. It is the market
>> of compilers which was killed [by the GPL].
> 
> I differ.  In the particular case of Ada, I doubt there woult be any
> market at all if it weren't for the zero-cost editions of GNAT.

In absence of the market GNAT GPL is certainly welcomed. But its existence
only supports the point.

> These attract younger developers and make Ada visible.

So would them C, C++, Objective C, Fortran and dozen other GCC front-ends,
provided your argument were valid. Which I suppose is: free things attract
young people.

> Personally, I think the GPL saved the market of Ada compilers.

It saved Ada, but GCC didn't save the market, which was almost dead before
GCC became usable. In this constellation of events the dying marked played
in favor of GCC, GCC profited gaining the users leaving the market, and so
aggravated the situation. Note I don't argue that FSF killed the market, it
was rather a social reaction on its death.

> Maybe the same effect could
> have been achieved with non-free compilers at low cost (less than 100
> EUR) but the competition from other languages with zero-cost compilers
> for other languages might have killed the Ada market entirely.

Absolutely. Ada followed the path paved by others. If it didn't, it would
vanish. But that is not the point.

>>> As for existing companies offering compilers, �you have mentioned
>>> RRSoftware, there are more Ada companies, some of them offer
>>> compilers at quite the usual prices. You'll have to ask, though.
>>
>> I doubt that there is a single company which earns anything from selling
>> compilers. Those who sell or give compilers for free refund from somewhere
>> else.
>>
>> This model (also known from Socialism) is not sustainable, so we are
>> observing the number of compilers for all languages declining, not just for
>> Ada.
> 
> I don't see what the "sell services, not software" model has to do with
> socialism.

Redistribution is the key. You pay/invest in not what you get/sell. It is a
distorted relationship between the producer and consumer.

As for services. If you sell them, sooner or later you come to the idea of
selling them without developing *useful* software. What makes a service
profitable? The point is that service is secondary to the product. It is a
parasite living on the host. The success of the former means nothing good
for the latter.

> And this model seems to be more than sustainable for AdaCore;
> this is probably because they made the concious decision *not* to address
> the SOHO market (i.e. high volume, low margins) at all.

USSR existed for 80 years before it collapsed.

That this model of software development (not only compiler development) is
not socially/economically sustainable is obvious when you consider present
software quality (miserable), the types of software being developed (mostly
useless/damaging), the amount of resources spend directly/indirectly on
software (huge waste).

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Ludovic Brenta]

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:47:38 -0700 (PDT), Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote on comp.lang.ada:
>>>> As for existing companies offering compilers,  you have mentioned
>>>> RRSoftware, there are more Ada companies, some of them offer
>>>> compilers at quite the usual prices. You'll have to ask, though.
>>>
>>> I doubt that there is a single company which earns anything from selling
>>> compilers. Those who sell or give compilers for free refund from somewhere
>>> else.
>>>
>>> This model (also known from Socialism) is not sustainable, so we are
>>> observing the number of compilers for all languages declining, not just for
>>> Ada.
>
>> I don't see what the "sell services, not software" model has to do with
>> socialism.
>
> Redistribution is the key. You pay/invest in not what you get/sell. It is a
> distorted relationship between the producer and consumer.

When a greedy capitalist multinational invests in advertizements, do
they sell advertizements to you? No. But marketing is a major part of
their expenditure.  I think we'll agree that that's a distorted
relationship between producer and consumer.  In the "sell software,
not services" model, the software is a vehicle for advertizing and
selling the services.  If the software is proprietary, you cannot tell
how buggy it is or will be in the future and you must depend on a
single supplier for the services.  If the software is Free Software,
there is no catch and no hidden bugs; all the bugs are in the open and
you don't have to buy services from the same people that provided the
first dose.

> As for services. If you sell them, sooner or later you come to the idea of
> selling them without developing *useful* software. What makes a service
> profitable? The point is that service is secondary to the product. It is a
> parasite living on the host. The success of the former means nothing good
> for the latter.

No, the service is not secondary to the product and you know that. Why
else does your company pay for AdaCore's services if they can get the
same compiler and libraries for free?  Even if your boss only pays to
"cover his ass" (i.e. help with certification), that is still a
valuable service.

>> And this model seems to be more than sustainable for AdaCore;
>> this is probably because they made the concious decision *not* to address
>> the SOHO market (i.e. high volume, low margins) at all.
>
> USSR existed for 80 years before it collapsed.

You still have not provided a satisfactory explanation of why you
think that the "sell services, no software" is socialism, so the
comparison with the USSR is meaningless to me.

> That this model of software development (not only compiler development) is
> not socially/economically sustainable is obvious when you consider present
> software quality (miserable), the types of software being developed (mostly
> useless/damaging), the amount of resources spend directly/indirectly on
> software (huge waste).

No, I explain these things by plain and simple greed and short-
sightedness from most people managing developers and from most
developers themselves.  Socialism has nothing to do with that.  Proof:
the miserable state of software you describe exists also in (some)
very capitalist companies selling high-end, expensive proprietary
software, especially those who charge only a small fraction of the
license fees in "maintenance fees".  These companies are simply not
interested in fixing the bugs that affect their customers; they are
only interested in selling "upgrades".  And the unrealistic time-to-
market pressures (e.g. arbitrarily fixed release schedules) make it
nearly impossible for them to ship bug-free software in the first
place.

--
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[J-P. Rosen]

Le 25/10/2010 11:47, Ludovic Brenta a �crit :
> I don't see what the "sell services, not software" model has to do
> with
> socialism.  And this model seems to be more than sustainable for
> AdaCore;
... and for others. AdaControl and business derived from AdaControl
represents a major part of Adalog's income.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Adalog a d�m�nag� / Adalog has moved:
2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX
Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 25.10.10 12:33, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> Redistribution is the key. You pay/invest in not what you get/sell. It is a
> distorted relationship between the producer and consumer.
> 
> The point is that service is secondary to the product.

I imagine that theorists of how-to-build-software-business will
emphasize differently:
Mathematically, the most important good is the one that
produces the highest profit, respecting the limiting factors
such as law, strategy, or other obligations.  Criteria such
as how-to-find-a-societal-optimum in a market economy
seem to be artifacts of macro economy without positive
manifestation anywhere.  Redistribution is a multivariate
function of n-compiler : m-customers, ceteris paribus.

Can you name the latter?

> It is a parasite living on the host.

(So he who rides a horse is a parasite? :-)

> The success of the former [parasite, service] means nothing good
> for the latter [host, compiler].

The above is a value judgment on compiler business:

Assume that a customer wanting to buy an XYZ compiler
gets a better deal if

- the language is simple, efficient, and consistent.
- the compilers just work.
- both are true for years.

The above customer's desire will, however, fail to influence
the compiler market, or the language.  For one thing, customers
may be competitors themselves.  Consequently, even when a language
is complex, even when compilers need constant attention, and thus
create substantial cost, customers will still not, in effect,
unite to obviate either complexity of language or quality of
compilers.  Who does, then?

Ages old rhetoric will assist either side.  Every forty-something
will have little difficulty explaining that anything of the above
is not really important, too principled, "get a life", family is
what matters, business is corrupt, anyway, the compiler business,
too, needs an income, etc etc.

Does it matters little, then, when some SPARK project seems to shine
even when seen from an economic perspective, being (almost?) under
budget, and in time?


> That this model of software development (not only compiler development) is
> not socially/economically sustainable is obvious when you consider present
> software quality (miserable), the types of software being developed (mostly
> useless/damaging), the amount of resources spend directly/indirectly on
> software (huge waste).


Do you have the numbers of compiler makers who sold
nothing but compilers in, say, the late 1980s versus
the same numbers as of today?  Numbers of licenses sold?

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 04:00:19 -0700 (PDT), Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:47:38 -0700 (PDT), Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>>> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote on comp.lang.ada:
>>>>> As for existing companies offering compilers, �you have mentioned
>>>>> RRSoftware, there are more Ada companies, some of them offer
>>>>> compilers at quite the usual prices. You'll have to ask, though.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt that there is a single company which earns anything from selling
>>>> compilers. Those who sell or give compilers for free refund from somewhere
>>>> else.
>>>>
>>>> This model (also known from Socialism) is not sustainable, so we are
>>>> observing the number of compilers for all languages declining, not just for
>>>> Ada.
>>
>>> I don't see what the "sell services, not software" model has to do with
>>> socialism.
>>
>> Redistribution is the key. You pay/invest in not what you get/sell. It is a
>> distorted relationship between the producer and consumer.
> 
> When a greedy capitalist multinational invests in advertizements, do
> they sell advertizements to you?
> No. But marketing is a major part of
> their expenditure.

Yes, and the money they are investing in the advertising are calculated in
the product cost. Therefore you and me are paying for that. Therefore they,
in effect, sell advertisements to us.

> If the software is proprietary, you cannot tell
> how buggy it is or will be in the future

The customer cannot anyway. Can you tell the quality of food you buy, the
car you drive etc? You cannot and you need not. It is the market +
liability regulations, which can in the end and only statistically ensure
product quality.

The idea that a compiler user must be an expert in compiler construction
only shows how immature the state of affairs is. It is a stone ages'
technological relationships with minimum or none labor division.

> and you must depend on a
> single supplier for the services.

Only if the supplier is the monopolist. But we were talking about a
*market*!

> If the software is Free Software,
> there is no catch and no hidden bugs; all the bugs are in the open and
> you don't have to buy services from the same people that provided the
> first dose.

Natural economy? No, again it is not a working model. Openness brings
nothing to the customers. It does to the competitors and/or to the
supervising bodies. In absence of the former (there is no market) and the
latter (there is no regulations), openness does not improve quality.

>> As for services. If you sell them, sooner or later you come to the idea of
>> selling them without developing *useful* software. What makes a service
>> profitable? The point is that service is secondary to the product. It is a
>> parasite living on the host. The success of the former means nothing good
>> for the latter.
> 
> No, the service is not secondary to the product and you know that. Why
> else does your company pay for AdaCore's services if they can get the
> same compiler and libraries for free?

1. GNAT Pro /= GNAT GPL;
2. We have another model, we sell software, i.e. we needed GM GPL;
3. AdaCore services have a great value well *beyond* the compiler.

In an ideal world AdaCore would sell both the compiler and the services
separately. In the real world I don't know how long AdaCore would remain
committed to Ada. I am afraid that it is the enthusiasm of AdaCore staff
rather than the pressure of non-existing market, which keeps this
commitment. Enthusiasm is not sustainable.

>>> And this model seems to be more than sustainable for AdaCore;
>>> this is probably because they made the concious decision *not* to address
>>> the SOHO market (i.e. high volume, low margins) at all.
>>
>> USSR existed for 80 years before it collapsed.
> 
> You still have not provided a satisfactory explanation of why you
> think that the "sell services, no software" is socialism, so the
> comparison with the USSR is meaningless to me.

That is because you were never exposed to Soviet propaganda. One of the
main arguments of which was: the salary is low because the rest (of what a
western worker earns) is given for free in the form of state *services*
(medicine, education, job security, retirement pension, apartment etc). 

There is nothing wrong with selling services, it is wrong to *refund* one
thing with another.

A commitment to refund based on enthusiasm wears off. The fourth generation
of soviet people wasn't committed anymore.

>> That this model of software development (not only compiler development) is
>> not socially/economically sustainable is obvious when you consider present
>> software quality (miserable), the types of software being developed (mostly
>> useless/damaging), the amount of resources spend directly/indirectly on
>> software (huge waste).
> 
> No, I explain these things by plain and simple greed and short-
> sightedness from most people managing developers and from most
> developers themselves.

Sorry, but people are greedy and short-sighted. I have no other people for
you...

> Socialism has nothing to do with that.

Of course it does. Another major thesis of Socialism was education of a New
Man, people who would fit and enjoy the new society. See, if the idea does
not work, there must be something wrong with the people. Let us teach them.
[ I hope there is no need to remind what follows when the people refuse
being taught... ]

> Proof:
> the miserable state of software you describe exists also in (some)
> very capitalist companies selling high-end, expensive proprietary
> software, especially those who charge only a small fraction of the
> license fees in "maintenance fees".  These companies are simply not
> interested in fixing the bugs that affect their customers; they are
> only interested in selling "upgrades".  And the unrealistic time-to-
> market pressures (e.g. arbitrarily fixed release schedules) make it
> nearly impossible for them to ship bug-free software in the first
> place.

It only shows the evident: absence of market produces monopolies, which
necessarily start abusing customers.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:06:44 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 25.10.10 12:33, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>> Redistribution is the key. You pay/invest in not what you get/sell. It is a
>> distorted relationship between the producer and consumer.
>> 
>> The point is that service is secondary to the product.
> 
> I imagine that theorists of how-to-build-software-business will
> emphasize differently:
> Mathematically, the most important good is the one that
> produces the highest profit, respecting the limiting factors
> such as law, strategy, or other obligations.  Criteria such
> as how-to-find-a-societal-optimum in a market economy
> seem to be artifacts of macro economy without positive
> manifestation anywhere.  Redistribution is a multivariate
> function of n-compiler : m-customers, ceteris paribus.
> 
> Can you name the latter?

Yes, the GOSPLAN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOSPLAN

The article does not mention that many modern mathematical methods were
developed for GOSPLAN trying to optimise that multivariate function of
Soviet economy. That didn't help, of course.

> (So he who rides a horse is a parasite? :-)

no, it is someone who cooks horse flesh. (:-))

>> That this model of software development (not only compiler development) is
>> not socially/economically sustainable is obvious when you consider present
>> software quality (miserable), the types of software being developed (mostly
>> useless/damaging), the amount of resources spend directly/indirectly on
>> software (huge waste).
> 
> Do you have the numbers of compiler makers who sold
> nothing but compilers in, say, the late 1980s versus
> the same numbers as of today?  Numbers of licenses sold?

No idea. There existed dozens of C compilers that time. How many are now?
Let us draw a chart: Ada version / compiler number

Ada 83 - 10 (?)
Ada 95  - 3 (?)
Ada 2005 - 1 (?)

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 25.10.10 15:41, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:06:44 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
>> On 25.10.10 12:33, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>
>>> Redistribution is the key. You pay/invest in not what you get/sell. It is a
>>> distorted relationship between the producer and consumer.
>>>
>>> The point is that service is secondary to the product.
>>
>> I imagine that theorists of how-to-build-software-business will
>> emphasize differently:
>> Mathematically, the most important good is the one that
>> produces the highest profit, respecting the limiting factors
>> such as law, strategy, or other obligations.  Criteria such
>> as how-to-find-a-societal-optimum in a market economy
>> seem to be artifacts of macro economy without positive
>> manifestation anywhere.  Redistribution is a multivariate
>> function of n-compiler : m-customers, ceteris paribus.
>>
>> Can you name the latter?
> 
> Yes, the GOSPLAN

I mean the ceteris paribus besides n-compiler : m-customers
that exists in the compiler market, today, which allegedly
have the effect that today's handful of Ada compiler shops
are starving, whereas other languages feed lots of
compiler makers, leaving myriads of choices.



>> Do you have the numbers of compiler makers who sold
>> nothing but compilers in, say, the late 1980s versus
>> the same numbers as of today?  Numbers of licenses sold?
> 
> No idea. There existed dozens of C compilers that time. How many are now?
> Let us draw a chart: Ada version / compiler number
> 
> Ada 83 - 10 (?)
> Ada 95  - 3 (?)
> Ada 2005 - 1 (?)

http://www.adaic.com/compilers/comp-tool.html

If you read the public discussions at ada-auth, you know
that IBM has some support for Ada 2005.  I'd also be surprised
if the SofCheck front end is still just Ada 95---a few
years ago there were traces of 2005 already.
In addition, I I'd suggest that Randy Brukardt is fleshing
out his quite active discussing the new libraries with something
compilable by Janus/Ada.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:00:19 +0200, Ludovic Brenta  
<ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> a écrit:
I may reply to others later, but I wanted to reply without waiting to your  
message.

> I think we'll agree that that's a distorted
> relationship between producer and consumer.  In the "sell software,
> not services" model, the software is a vehicle for advertizing and
> selling the services.
Agree and strongly feels this is distorted too. And to be honest, that is  
true for every thing with some more or less relationship with the web (and  
most software are distributed on the web). This has another effect : the  
value is not the value of what is primarily exposed as valuable (the  
software, or the document on web-site), as this is valuable for the  
author, only via indirect ways which has nothing to deal with what is  
exposed as valuable.

> If the software is proprietary, you cannot tell
> how buggy it is or will be in the future and you must depend on a
> single supplier for the services.  If the software is Free Software,
> there is no catch and no hidden bugs; all the bugs are in the open
That is entirely false. Few people audit sources, and open or close source  
does not matter for 98% of users. It is commonly known that with about  
70/80% of open-source software, you have a single developer and nobody  
else care about the source. Further more, nowadays applications tends to  
be so much complex that understanding or auditing the source requires a  
enormous personal investment, so just a few people do that. And this  
complexity helps hidden bug or even back-door. Sorry, forget the link, but  
I swear I recently read about an open-source application with such a  
back-door. Free does not guarantee anything. Bugs may still be hidden by  
lack of human investment and high complexity.

> and
> you don't have to buy services from the same people that provided the
> first dose.
The trouble here is more with a lack of interoperability. The matter more  
deals with public standards, like POSIX, XML, vs proprietary stuffs, like  
the MS-Doc proprietary format.

> No, the service is not secondary to the product and you know that. Why
> else does your company pay for AdaCore's services if they can get the
> same compiler and libraries for free?  Even if your boss only pays to
> "cover his ass" (i.e. help with certification), that is still a
> valuable service.
AdaCore is company to which you could not compare any other. Their clients  
are big clients with special needs. For most others I would say a software  
is good if it does not requires support, because it is fine as-is without  
support. For these common cases, if you want people to rely on your  
services (because you must give the software for free because you do not  
have the choice due to the context), then you must try to be unavoidable,  
a kind of monopole or a kind of unique quasi-actor in an area. Otherwise,  
if you do read-to-use-without-need-for-more-support-software, you simply  
loose. In some way, this context push complexity and trouble-inside  
software, just because support is the only way to get any earn. And doing  
so, you must be sure nobody could provide the support except you (thus,  
the need for high complexity). That is distorted too.

This is not applicable at all to tiny company or stand-alone authors.

> You still have not provided a satisfactory explanation of why you
> think that the "sell services, no software" is socialism, so the
> comparison with the USSR is meaningless to me.
Well, I agree the word socialism may be a bit miss-used here, but that is  
another story (not for that place).

> No, I explain these things by plain and simple greed and short-
> sightedness from most people managing developers and from most
> developers themselves.  Socialism has nothing to do with that.  Proof:
> the miserable state of software you describe exists also in (some)
> very capitalist companies selling high-end, expensive proprietary
> software, especially those who charge only a small fraction of the
> license fees in "maintenance fees".  These companies are simply not
> interested in fixing the bugs that affect their customers; they are
> only interested in selling "upgrades".  And the unrealistic time-to-
> market pressures (e.g. arbitrarily fixed release schedules) make it
> nearly impossible for them to ship bug-free software in the first
> place.
If they do not care, that is not because they sell free or none-free  
software, that is because they are big and as such, they are unavoidable.  
They know whatever they do, clients will be sticked with them (the case  
with MS, as an example, and I say that although I am running Windows). And  
unfortunately, the context push this kind of big companies, because  
alternatives will not have even a chance to born or to survive. As I  
sometime say, “Linux did not help to get ride of Windows, it instead  
helped to enforce MS monopole”. Why ? Because it helped MS killing any  
potential MS concurrents.

The idea that the author as no right at all and only the consumer as all  
the rights, could not ends into anything else. You must have the power of  
a monopole to get a chance to survive in such a context. Otherwise, no  
right for authors and all rights for consumers, simply means you better be  
a consumer than an author. Result : more and more consumers, less and less  
authors (or less and less authors who survive). The result is poor authors  
and poor products, as Dmitry argue.

Note : AdaCore is a kind of UFO here, as it provides a rather good  
product. But I still believe its special status (like public funding while  
others did not get the same, and GPL) made some collateral damage, and I  
know someones (at least one), seems to have suffered from that.


-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:47:38 +0200, Ludovic Brenta  
<ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> a écrit:
> I differ.  In the particular case of Ada, I doubt there woult be any
> market at all if it weren't for the zero-cost editions of GNAT.  These
> attract younger developers and make Ada visible.  Personally, I think
> the GPL saved the market of Ada compilers.  Maybe the same effect
> could
> have been achieved with non-free compilers at low cost (less than 100
> EUR) but the competition from other languages with zero-cost compilers
> for other languages might have killed the Ada market entirely.
So with your last sentence, you just confirmed what some body here are  
complaining about ;)

-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:33:21 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
> It saved Ada, but GCC didn't save the market, which was almost dead
I do not even think so. What I am disappointed about with Ada in this  
context is that Ada could be a chance to do better… not to be more  
productive (I personally don't like a lot the target of always being more  
productive), but to do things better. But why one would invest itself  
using Ada, which as every one knows, does not even let you compile every  
thing right away as many would want, if this is for the same final result ?

Produce cheaper, implies less investment or compression of costs. It is  
even worse when you have to produce for free (by the way, many people even  
avoid such an adventure). If you have to produce for free, you better to  
it very quickly and with the less investment as possible, thus you better  
use C than Ada :(

This is in my opinion, one of the reason why Ada is so much less used in  
common software (which must be given for free, because authors don't have  
the choice) and near to only used in critical areas.

That is also why a hate a bit to always read Ada is a language for safety  
critical applications. I would like to say No, it is well suited for many  
thing else. Why common applications should not be designed well ? Does it  
requires to be a critical application to be readable (while to be  
readable, Ada is not enough, this requires other stuff) and well design ?  
I hope not.

Ada should be used even in these other area, but it cannot, because the  
authors will simply feel “why bother doing better if doing better will not  
make me better ?”

And so you have 99% of applications designed in C (which does not even  
support such a basic thing as real modularity) and Ada restricted to the  
only niches where consumers agree this is worth some investment and  
given-for-free is not the main or even commonly only requirement.

-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:49:31 +0200, J-P. Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr> a écrit:

> Le 25/10/2010 11:47, Ludovic Brenta a écrit :
>> I don't see what the "sell services, not software" model has to do
>> with
>> socialism.  And this model seems to be more than sustainable for
>> AdaCore;
> ... and for others. AdaControl and business derived from AdaControl
> represents a major part of Adalog's income.

Some cases is not the common case. Indeed, this is not applicable in the  
large. You can save a tree in a burning forest, the forest will still be  
burned. Or else, that would just be like to say as some C or assembly  
applications are good enough (which is true as there are cases), means C  
or assembly is good enough (which is wrong in the large).

Also, to talk using pictures, are we supposed to have a market for  
expensive jewels (for rich people) only and not for food (for all others) ?

-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Thomas Løcke]

On 2010-10-25 21:06, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
> That is entirely false. Few people audit sources, and open or close
> source does not matter for 98% of users.


Apparently me and my business are part of those last 2% then.

I've been buying and using both closed and open source software since 
the mid 90's, and I can tell you that, in general, the quality of open 
source software is much higher than it's closed counterpart.

Much. Higher.

Let me give you a few examples:

Over the years I've had numerous problems with the Cisco routers setup 
by my ISP. They lock up on occassion. They drop a packet here and there. 
Setting up failover is apparently difficult to do right, as my ISP has 
failed this many times. Still, according to my ISP it's top of line 
equipment. It's Cisco!

Yet after having switched to open source routers/firewalls based on BSD 
(I got tired of Cisco), I haven't experienced a single problem. Not one 
single issue.

An expensive closed Avaya IP telephony setup fails left and right, yet 
an open Asterisk based setup using the exact same network works 
flawlessly. I have used both.

The core software used by my business is closed source (I didn't know 
better when I bought it), and I've had to build my own safeguards around 
it, just to keep it running somewhat stable. This might be due to 
clueless developers, bad code or something entirely different, but I'll 
never know, because I can't get access to the source. It's a blackbox.

The open source RDBMS I'm using is solid as a rock (PostgreSQL). The 
closed source Microsoft database that is a part of the above mentioned 
core software is flaky.

The closed source Windows XP clients I'm being forced to use due to the 
above mentioned closed source core software are unstable, insecure and 
unmaintainable.

The open source Linux clients are stable, easy to maintain and much 
easier to keep secure.

The closed source IE browser is utter crap. The open source 
Firefox/Seamonkey/Chrome browsers are much much better, both from a user 
and developer point of view.

The few closed source Windows servers I'm running are giving me 
infinitely more grief than the open source Linux servers. The two things 
simply does not compare.

The closed source fax server software I'm using (again due to the core 
software mentioned earlier) crashes at least 2 times a week. The open 
source fax software I used a few years back failed me perhaps a few 
times a year, and those failures were due to human error on my part.

Over the years I've run all sorts of closed source Windows based 
SMTP/IMAP/POP3 setups (before I started using Linux), and all of them 
have been fickle and unstable. To this day I often have the dis-pleasure 
of assisting my customers in figuring out why their Exchange servers 
fail. And believe you me, they often fail.

On the other hand, a Postfix/Dovecot setup is solid as a rock.

My open source Samba servers are running 24/7/365 without a hitch. I 
simply don't have to worry about them. The same thing cannot be said 
about the few shares I'm forced to host on a couple of Windows boxes.

Open source matters to a lot of us, even though we don't personally 
audit every line of code. What's important, is that we have the freedom 
to do so. We have the freedom to both fix bugs and add functionality to 
the software we use. We have the freedom to hire one or more programmers 
and add features and/or fix problems.

I've contributed to the AdaCore AWS project, and I've done so because I 
had an itch that needed scratching. If my contribution helps someone 
else do something of value with AWS, then YAY!

If my contribution helps AdaCore earn something from having AWS in their 
portfolio, then YAY!

Had AWS been closed source, I would've never done that. It would've been 
impossible, and AWS would've been a little less feature-complete. And 
more importantly: I would've never considered using it in my business. 
I've had enough of poor closed source products and ugly vendor lock-in.

These are my experiences through +20 years of having run my own business.


> As I sometime say, “Linux did not help to get ride of
> Windows, it instead helped to enforce MS monopole”. Why ? Because it
> helped MS killing any potential MS concurrents.
>
 > [snip]
 >
> The idea that the author as no right at all and only the consumer as all
> the rights, could not ends into anything else. You must have the power
> of a monopole to get a chance to survive in such a context. Otherwise,
> no right for authors and all rights for consumers, simply means you
> better be a consumer than an author. Result : more and more consumers,
> less and less authors (or less and less authors who survive). The result
> is poor authors and poor products, as Dmitry argue.


I'd like to see some hard numbers backing up those two claims.

Open source does not mean that an author gives up his copyright, nor 
does it mean that he can't sell his software.

Open source does not equal free, as in free beer. I pay for each and 
every Slackware release and I often donate to open source projects that 
are valuable to me. I'm sure other users do the same.

-- 
Regards,
Thomas Løcke

Email: tl at ada-dk.org
Web: http:ada-dk.org
IRC nick: ThomasLocke

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:39:01 +0200, Thomas Løcke <tl@ada-dk.org> a écrit:
> I've been buying and using both closed and open source software since  
> the mid 90's, and I can tell you that, in general, the quality of open  
> source software is much higher than it's closed counterpart.
>
> Much. Higher.
>
> Let me give you a few examples:
>
> [Summary: Cisco and MS application are not so good]
That is just one example opposed to another, we may go nowhere like this.  
What is worth, is processes and to understand why this or that leads to  
this or that (not something like I/I-want-to believe that or that). This  
already has been answered : MS is a monopole. I do not know enough about  
Cisco and the market share inb the network hardware area, but as I read  
you, I may guess Cisco has a so big market share that it does not feel the  
need to do better (someone may confirm or infirm).

In the area of particular facts opposed to other particular facts, I could  
oppose Windows ease of use or MacOS hight quality UI to Linux desktop, as  
well as I could oppose Opera to FireFox, or Borland Turbo Pascal to GNU  
Pascal, and so on. That will never prove close is better than open or open  
is better than close.

Talking about processes (if things are like they are, there must be a  
process which leads to it, isn't it ?), the hypothesis that a monopole  
tends to care less seems to explain more things to me. While the debate  
close vs open does not, as any one could always cite counter examples (as  
I just did), which means this is not relevant (a theory is not relevant if  
it cannot predict anything).


> Open source matters to a lot of us, even though we don't personally  
> audit every line of code. What's important, is that we have the freedom  
> to do so. We have the freedom to both fix bugs and add functionality to  
> the software we use. We have the freedom to hire one or more programmers  
> and add features and/or fix problems.
What you qualify “a lot”, is actually a few compared to the personal area  
and the overall count of users of computers. I maintain the point this is  
no more than 95/98% of consumers.


> I've contributed to the AdaCore AWS project, and I've done so because I  
> had an itch that needed scratching. If my contribution helps someone  
> else do something of value with AWS, then YAY!
Yes, but you were helped in return : pretty sure you were salary of a  
company. But ask others which could not get a job due to social dumping,  
or to someone trying to create something and to whom people said “don't  
sell you software unless you want to be evil, give it for free instead and  
try to get earn given it for free and selling t-shirt labeled I Love  
SoftXYZ”. Is the value of a software in a t-shirt ? In ads ? In the  
request to solve troubles which comes with it ?

> I'd like to see some hard numbers backing up those two claims.
Would be difficult, there are all dead. On the other hand, I see a lot of  
attempt which fails, and not because the software is not good, just  
because consumers want it for nothing, because some one tell them “if  
someone ask you earn for a software, he/she is evil, insist to get it for  
nothing” and justified this with a “the value of a software is in the cost  
of the copying process, if copying cost nothing, then the soft should cost  
nothing”. Does really the value of a software is in the cost of its copy ?  
You guess now why using C or Ada does not bother a lot of developer, and  
why even C may look more attractive… what ever, “the value is in the cost  
of the copying process”, as said someone.

More than that, the ISP, which does not create anything has more rights  
than the authors. The one who create the thing and must provide the copy  
for free has less rights than the one which transport the copy. Did you  
ever heard someone ISP does not offer the service for free ?

And to say even more, its even worse than the belief “the value is in the  
cost of the copy” : hosting a download server does not cost nothing. Do  
you know a lot of consumer which agree to give for that ? It even goes a  
step further.

Any other questions ? Still have a doubt ? Know someone who could get some  
right in such a context ?

> Open source does not mean that an author gives up his copyright, nor  
> does it mean that he can't sell his software.
The GPL is actually known as the source of one of the biggest license hell  
(was a topic on the french CLA about it).

The author must give the consumer the right to redistribute for free.  
Guess what the consumer gonna do ? Guess how this will end for the author  
? The author cannot expect to do say 1000 sells for $20 or $50, because as  
soon as he will sell the first one copy for $20 or $50, he will not sell a  
second one. So he must do one sell for 1000 * $20, that is $2000. But whom  
consumer gonna agree to paid the big price ? Do you think they gonna want  
to be the one who paid the big price or the all other one who get the free  
copy ?

And that is how things go.

> Open source does not equal free, as in free beer. I pay for each and  
> every Slackware release and I often donate to open source projects that  
> are valuable to me. I'm sure other users do the same.
How many people do that ? 0.0001% ?

Its all about destructive economy, just like the destruction of European  
economy with Chinese imports, or the destruction of the African economy  
with massive European exports (at a so much low cost that it killed the  
African local economy). You promise the big affair (free), but that is for  
the short run, as on the long run, every one become poorer and poorer.

You talk about free, but you are probably a salary. See the paradox ?


-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:39:01 +0200, Thomas Løcke <tl@ada-dk.org> a écrit:
> the quality of open source software is much higher than it's closed  
> counterpart.
A live example just for fun : some days ago I have submitted a bug report  
for an open-source application. The bug is a variant of a division by zero  
: if zero is given as a data in an input field of the application, then  
the application enters an infinite loop, memor consumption increase at the  
speed of light while usage of one whole core of the CPU is 100%.

The reply I just get right a few seconds ago : “no body should provide a  
zero in that field, this is an edge case, users just have to be careful,  
so I do not see a reason to fix it” (I submitted other bugs reports for  
the same application, and all get similar replies).

I report this just to tease you ;) as I won't say all open-sources goes  
the same way (but this show open source does not guarantee anything).

-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Thomas Løcke]

On 2010-10-26 01:29, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
> In the area of particular facts opposed to other particular facts, I
> could oppose Windows ease of use or MacOS hight quality UI to Linux
> desktop, as well as I could oppose Opera to FireFox, or Borland Turbo
> Pascal to GNU Pascal, and so on. That will never prove close is better
> than open or open is better than close.


My point exactly.

We cannot prove these things - all we can do is rely on our own experiences.

Mine is that for the most part open source > closed source. Your 
experience might differ completely.


> Talking about processes (if things are like they are, there must be a
> process which leads to it, isn't it ?), the hypothesis that a monopole
> tends to care less seems to explain more things to me. While the debate
> close vs open does not, as any one could always cite counter examples
> (as I just did), which means this is not relevant (a theory is not
> relevant if it cannot predict anything).


Well, sometimes a process might span decades. Things might happen ever 
so slow, that it's hard to figure out the why, what and where.

If more and more people are having the same experiences as me, then more 
and more people are going to start caring. Perhaps it's just plain old 
evolution at work.


> What you qualify “a lot”, is actually a few compared to the personal
> area and the overall count of users of computers. I maintain the point
> this is no more than 95/98% of consumers.


You maintain it, yes. But you have yet to back up the claim.

Do you have hard numbers, or is it "just" your experience?  :o)


> Yes, but you were helped in return : pretty sure you were salary of a
> company.


No. I run and own the business. I contributed to AWS  because I foresee 
a long term benefit for my company and my employees by doing so.

I handed over the copyright of my code to AdaCore because I believe they 
have a good product on their hands, and I hope AWS will play a small 
part in keeping them successful.


> But ask others which could not get a job due to social dumping,
> or to someone trying to create something and to whom people said “don't
> sell you software unless you want to be evil, give it for free instead
> and try to get earn given it for free and selling t-shirt labeled I Love
> SoftXYZ”.


I'm not telling anybody to give away their software for free.

Open source does not equal free.

And who are these people who can't get jobs due to "social dumping"? 
Again, do you have any numbers to back up such a claim?

I'm first and foremost a businessman, and I'm telling you that I would 
_much_ rather buy open source software than closed source software. The 
operative word here being BUY.


> Is the value of a software in a t-shirt ? In ads ? In the
> request to solve troubles which comes with it ?


The value in software is in its ability to help solve problems.

I'm willing to pay good money for that value, and I suspect that I'm not 
alone.


>> I'd like to see some hard numbers backing up those two claims.
> Would be difficult, there are all dead. On the other hand, I see a lot
> of attempt which fails, and not because the software is not good, just
> because consumers want it for nothing,


That's a completely different discussion. A lot of consumers copy, 
steal, borrow and torrent left and right. Be it movies, music or software.

But "a lot" does not equal everybody. I'm sure I'm not the only one who 
actually want to give credit where credit is due.


> because some one tell them “if
> someone ask you earn for a software, he/she is evil, insist to get it
> for nothing” and justified this with a “the value of a software is in
> the cost of the copying process, if copying cost nothing, then the soft
> should cost nothing”.


I don't subscribe to that, and I don't think it has anything to do with 
open source.

What you're talking about is free software - free as in free beer.

AFAIK what we're talking about here is open vs. closed.


> Does really the value of a software is in the cost
> of its copy ?


No. Not to me at least. The value is in its ability to help solve my 
problems, help make me more successful, help me build a better business.


> The author must give the consumer the right to redistribute for free.


What?

Open source does not mean that the author automatically give the user 
rights to redistribute.

Open source simply means that the source for a program is made available 
to the user.

The license then dictates whether or not the buyer can redistribute, 
copy, sell or whatnot.


> Guess what the consumer gonna do ? Guess how this will end for the
> author ? The author cannot expect to do say 1000 sells for $20 or $50,
> because as soon as he will sell the first one copy for $20 or $50, he
> will not sell a second one. So he must do one sell for 1000 * $20, that
> is $2000. But whom consumer gonna agree to paid the big price ? Do you
> think they gonna want to be the one who paid the big price or the all
> other one who get the free copy ?
>
> And that is how things go.


Do you have any real numbers to back this up?

And how is this different from closed source software? Thiefs will 
steal, no matter what.

There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who find a $100 note 
in a restaurant and hand it over to the waiter, and those who find the 
$100 note and put it in their own pocket.

It's no different with software.


>> Open source does not equal free, as in free beer. I pay for each and
>> every Slackware release and I often donate to open source projects
>> that are valuable to me. I'm sure other users do the same.
> How many people do that ? 0.0001% ?
>
> Its all about destructive economy, just like the destruction of European
> economy with Chinese imports, or the destruction of the African economy
> with massive European exports (at a so much low cost that it killed the
> African local economy). You promise the big affair (free), but that is
> for the short run, as on the long run, every one become poorer and poorer.
>
> You talk about free, but you are probably a salary. See the paradox ?


I don't talk about free. You keep bringing it up. There's no paradox 
here. And I'm not a salary.

Open source does not equal free.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.  :o)

-- 
Regards,
Thomas Løcke

Email: tl at ada-dk.org
Web: http:ada-dk.org
IRC nick: ThomasLocke

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:33:12 +0000, Colin Paul Gloster wrote:

> Do Chinese imports destroy the European economy or do excessively high
> costs of living in Europe and excessively high salaries in Europe and
> laziness of Europeans destroy the European economy?

1. Excessively high costs of living as well as other things you mention are
the key parts of the European economy. So whatever causes them vanishing is
a destruction of that economy, for good or bad.

2. Considering the parameters you mention, excessively high cost of living
presumes that someone else pays for Europeans. That is not the case. [*]
Laziness presumes in this context that the average productivity of an
European worker is lower than one of a Chinese worker. This is also wrong,
very wrong. 

You compare admittedly lazy, decadent, hypocritical, cynical, and
treacherous Europe with some ideal society, which firstly does not exist,
and secondly, from which China is eons more distant than that "nasty"
Europe.

---
* BTW, Germany even subsidizes China, which by some miraculous calculation
is counted as developing country.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Colin Paul Gloster]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 3651 bytes --]

Warning: not specific to Ada.

Thomas Løcke <tl@Ada-Dk.org> sent on October 26th, 2010:
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"On 2010-10-26 01:29, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:                          |
|[..]                                                                            |
|                                                                                |
|[..]                                                                            |
|                                                                                |
|Open source does not mean that the author automatically give the user rights to |
|redistribute."                                                                  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Hi,

Actually that each user has a redistribution right is a requirement
for something to be open-source:
WWW.OpenSource.org/docs/osd

|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"Open source simply means that the source for a program is made available to the|
|user.                                                                           |
|                                                                                |
|[..]"                                                                           |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

It is not that simple.



|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[..]                                                                           |
|                                                                                |
|[..]                                                                            |
|>                                                                               |
|> [..] the destruction of European                                              |
|> economy with Chinese imports, [..]                                            |
|[..]"                                                                           |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Do Chinese imports destroy the European economy or do excessively high
costs of living in Europe and excessively high salaries in Europe and
laziness of Europeans destroy the European economy?

|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"> You talk about free, but you are probably a salary. See the paradox ?        |
|                                                                                |
|                                                                                |
|I don't talk about free. You keep bringing it up. There's no paradox here. And  |
|I'm not a salary."                                                              |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Maybe you could excuse him for not being as good at English as you?
Maybe he was trying to suggest that you have a salary.

|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[..]                                                                           |
|                                                                                |
|I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.  :o)"                    |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

No we don't ;)

Colin Paul

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Thomas Løcke]

On 2010-10-26 16:33, Colin Paul Gloster wrote:
> Actually that each user has a redistribution right is a requirement
> for something to be open-source:
> WWW.OpenSource.org/docs/osd


Yes, well..

I know about that website, and I think their definition is a bit narrow.

If I buy a product where the source code is available to me, and the 
license permits all sorts of tinkering for my own use, then I consider 
that software open source.

I have no idea whether I'm alone with that point of view, but I do 
understand that the fact that my definition of the concept "open source" 
is at odds with Yannick's probably play some part in our failure to 
understand each other.


>
> |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |"Open source simply means that the source for a program is made available to the|
> |user.                                                                           |
> |                                                                                |
> |[..]"                                                                           |
> |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
> It is not that simple.


It isn't if you think of opensource.org as the definitive authority on 
what is and what isn't open source.

I don't.


> Do Chinese imports destroy the European economy or do excessively high
> costs of living in Europe and excessively high salaries in Europe and
> laziness of Europeans destroy the European economy?


Our high salaries are not helping us, that's for sure.

Whether or not we're lazy, I don't know. I think my employees put in 
more or less the same amount of work/effort as they did 20 years ago.


> Maybe you could excuse him for not being as good at English as you?
> Maybe he was trying to suggest that you have a salary.


Good point.


> |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> |"[..]                                                                           |
> |                                                                                |
> |I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.  :o)"                    |
> |--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
> No we don't ;)


We're in for a long haul then!  :D

-- 
Regards,
Thomas Løcke

Email: tl at ada-dk.org
Web: http:ada-dk.org
IRC nick: ThomasLocke

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Shark8]

>So would them C, C++, Objective C, Fortran and dozen other GCC front-ends,
>provided your argument were valid. Which I suppose is: free things attract
>young people.

...for some reason "Free STDs!!" popped into my head upon reading
that.
;)

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Colin Paul Gloster]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 3673 bytes --]

Thomas Løcke <tl@Ada-Dk.org> sent on October 26th, 2010:

|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"On 2010-10-26 16:33, Colin Paul Gloster wrote:                               |
|> Actually that each user has a redistribution right is a requirement         |
|> for something to be open-source:                                            |
|> WWW.OpenSource.org/docs/osd                                                 |
|                                                                              |
|                                                                              |
|Yes, well..                                                                   |
|                                                                              |
|I know about that website, and I think their definition is a bit narrow.      |
|                                                                              |
|[..]                                                                          |
|                                                                              |
|It isn't if you think of opensource.org as the definitive authority on what is|
|and what isn't open source.                                                   |
|                                                                              |
|I don't."                                                                     |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Hi,

They coined and defined the term. They are the definitive authority.

|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"> Do Chinese imports destroy the European economy or do excessively high     |
|> costs of living in Europe and excessively high salaries in Europe and       |
|> laziness of Europeans destroy the European economy?                         |
|                                                                              |
|                                                                              |
|[..]                                                                          |
|                                                                              |
|Whether or not we're lazy, I don't know. I think my employees put in more or  |
|less the same amount of work/effort as they did 20 years ago.                 |
|                                                                              |
|[..]"                                                                         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

All laziness is relative. In relation to someone who chose to and did
spend only one minute of his life on recreation, that person was
lazier than someone who lived as long and chose to spend every minute
working hard.

American companies in Europe are not as leanient as European
companies. Supposedly people who had gone to America found that there
was less free time there and have returned to Europe.

European clockwatchers' working times per week are less than circa 46
hours, approximately four hours less than in Europe before the Second
World War.

People have been protesting in Europe against raising retirement
age. A friend in Europe is about to retire at the youngest permissible
age.

Not all Europeans are the same. Someone I am acquainted with in one
European country had a client which needed to outsource work because
labor laws in another European country forbade forcing the employees
of the client from doing enough work.

Regards,
Paul Colin

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Colin Paul Gloster]

Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@Dmitry-Kazakov.De> sent on October 26th, 2010:
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:33:12 +0000, Colin Paul Gloster wrote:             |
|                                                                           |
|> Do Chinese imports destroy the European economy or do excessively high   |
|> costs of living in Europe and excessively high salaries in Europe and    |
|> laziness of Europeans destroy the European economy?                      |
|                                                                           |
|1. Excessively high costs of living as well as other things you mention are|
|the key parts of the European economy. So whatever causes them vanishing is|
|a destruction of that economy, for good or bad."                           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Good point.

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"2. Considering the parameters you mention, excessively high cost of living|
|presumes that someone else pays for Europeans."                            |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

No, it is a high cost of living. If it is a proxy for someone else
paying for Europeans, then I am not aware of it but then neither am I
an economist. I interpret it as a bad legacy similar to inflation.

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|" That is not the case. [*]                                                |
|[..]                                                                       |
|* BTW, Germany even subsidizes China, which by some miraculous calculation |
|is counted as developing country."                                         |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Shall the Federal so-called Republic of Germany stop subsidizing the
so-called Republic of Ireland during this century?

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"Laziness presumes in this context that the average productivity of an     |
|European worker "                                                          |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

I do not know whether or not an average European worker is lazy. I do
not deem laziness to be anti-correlated with productivity.

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"is lower than one of a Chinese worker. This is also wrong,                |
|very wrong."                                                               |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

I do not know much about Chinese workers. I imagine that average
Chinese workers are forced to work for much longer than average
European workers, whether or not they are lazy.

However, in Europe one has legal protection to enforce laziness if a
lazy person in Europe opts to. This may even be true in China, but I
suspect to a lesser extent. However, as I mentioned: I do not know.

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"You compare admittedly lazy, decadent, hypocritical, cynical, and         |
|treacherous Europe with some ideal society, which firstly does not exist," |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Europe does not have those personal attributes. Europe is not a
person.

|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"and secondly, from which China is eons more distant than that "nasty"     |
|Europe."                                                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

There are definitely problems in China.

Regards,
Colin Paul

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:59:29 +0000, Colin Paul Gloster wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@Dmitry-Kazakov.De> sent on October 26th, 2010:
>|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>|"2. Considering the parameters you mention, excessively high cost of living|
>|presumes that someone else pays for Europeans."                            |
>|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> 
> No, it is a high cost of living. If it is a proxy for someone else
> paying for Europeans, then I am not aware of it but then neither am I
> an economist.

But if Europeans pay for themselves where is an excess? I consider it
normal to spend the earned.

> Shall the Federal so-called Republic of Germany stop subsidizing the
> so-called Republic of Ireland during this century?

Do you mean EU's subsidizing programs? Some of them are wasting of money,
some not.
 
>|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>|"Laziness presumes in this context that the average productivity of an     |
>|European worker "                                                          |
>|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> 
> I do not know whether or not an average European worker is lazy. I do
> not deem laziness to be anti-correlated with productivity.

That depends on the measure. In working hours per week? Wouldn't you prefer
a lazy Ada programmer, who completes the project before the schedule and
spends the rest of the time on the beach, to a C programmer enjoying
16-hours-per-day marathons of patching bug-ridden mess he wrote?

>|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>|"is lower than one of a Chinese worker. This is also wrong,                |
>|very wrong."                                                               |
>|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> 
> I do not know much about Chinese workers. I imagine that average
> Chinese workers are forced to work for much longer than average
> European workers, whether or not they are lazy.

They are working much harder, but also much less productive. But who is
lazy here?

Another point. Lazy is someone who deliberately decides not to work. Now,
people in China are *forced* to work, otherwise they hunger. [ In USSR
there was a legal punishment for those who refused to take a job. Maybe
something like this exists in China too. ] Where do you know if they wanted
to work more than Europeans under same conditions?

> However, in Europe one has legal protection to enforce laziness if a
> lazy person in Europe opts to.

I disagree. The legal protection of workers is here in order compensate the
power an employer has over the employees. This in the end makes workers
more productive, from which employers benefit even more than the employees.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Laziness (Was: Re: Ada is getting more popular!)

[Jeffrey Carter]

On 10/27/2010 06:07 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>
> That depends on the measure. In working hours per week? Wouldn't you prefer
> a lazy Ada programmer, who completes the project before the schedule and
> spends the rest of the time on the beach, to a C programmer enjoying
> 16-hours-per-day marathons of patching bug-ridden mess he wrote?

There's an old saying: The hard worker buckles down and does what is needed to 
get the job done. The lazy worker figures out a way to do the job with less 
effort. So all progress is due to the lazy worker.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Beyond 100,000 lines of code you
should probably be coding in Ada."
P. J. Plauger
26

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Thomas Løcke]

On 2010-10-27 13:32, Colin Paul Gloster wrote:
> They coined and defined the term. They are the definitive authority.


The OSI didn't exist when the term was coined.

And the concept of "open source" existed decades before the OSI.

The OSI is the definitive authority on _their_ brand of open source.


> All laziness is relative. In relation to someone who chose to and did
> spend only one minute of his life on recreation, that person was
> lazier than someone who lived as long and chose to spend every minute
> working hard.


Or the first person was a bit smarter, and could hence spend a minute 
enjoying his coffee, while still getting the same amount of work done as 
the person who never stopped working.  :o)


-- 
Regards,
Thomas Løcke

Email: tl at ada-dk.org
Web: http:ada-dk.org
IRC nick: ThomasLocke

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Thomas Løcke]

On 2010-10-27 21:28, Thomas Løcke wrote:
> The OSI didn't exist when the term was coined.


I forgot the ever important ";-)" immediately after the dot.

-- 
Regards,
Thomas Løcke

Email: tl at ada-dk.org
Web: http:ada-dk.org
IRC nick: ThomasLocke

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:28:57 +0200, Thomas Løcke <tl@ada-dk.org> a écrit:
> The OSI didn't exist when the term was coined.
>
> And the concept of "open source" existed decades before the OSI.
>
> The OSI is the definitive authority on _their_ brand of open source.

Yes, but the GPL says nothing different about what Colin Paul pointed out.

Ask anyone on any forum if you ever doubt it.

Some two years in the past, I came to a conclusion similar as yours, that  
is, access to source is valuable, so there is a paradox in saying open  
source must be free, because this would mean what is more valuable, values  
less than what is less valuable. Ex. if soft one can sell soft X without  
for whatever price, it makes to sense to say that with source the same  
soft must be given for nothing, because the soft with source has finally  
more value than the soft without source.

On some forum I use to start topics about it, talking about the above, and  
adding “not even this makes no sense, but I would even see good reasons to  
sell the soft with source for a bit more fees than without source”.

Result : big crisis (some near to injuries) all over the place, and people  
shouting “if this is not free, this is not open source, because Richard  
Stallman said so, and all people though this was a very clever idea (they  
love him very for that).

So try to attack the another way, and replied “but why not try to see both  
the price and the open-source characteristic apart ?” I feel indeed, price  
is a trait and open-source is another trait, and based on this (if this  
were not different things, the same word could be used to express both) I  
asked them : what is the most important for you in, say, Linux : “the  
price which is zero, or its open-source trait”. Short talk : impossible to  
get a single answer to this question, all replies was of the form  
“open-source = free, why don't you want to say all every one tell you here  
?”. No way to make them understand these are two different traits  
(technically, these are).

Open-source and free are simply synonymous all over the web and in near to  
all minds.

Nothing to add, because this is simply no possible talks in that area (as  
I experienced multiple times). There is a unique opinion, and that is all.


-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Laziness (Was: Re: Ada is getting more popular!)

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:51:30 +0200, Jeffrey Carter  
<spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> a écrit:
> There's an old saying: The hard worker buckles down and does what is  
> needed to get the job done. The lazy worker figures out a way to do the  
> job with less effort. So all progress is due to the lazy worker.

Yes, and as the wisdom say, “a good programmer is a lazy programmer”
http://fr.search.yahoo.com/search?p=a+good+programmer+is+a+lazy+programmer

-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Thomas Løcke]

On 2010-10-27 22:46, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
> Yes, but the GPL says nothing different about what Colin Paul pointed out.


I know.

I understand the GPL and I understand the OSI definition.

It just so happens that I think of open source in broader terms. When I
buy a piece of software, I consider it open source if I have access to
the source, if I can freely tinker with it for my own needs and if I can
keep maintaining the software after official support has been dropped
for it by the vendor. Redistribution is not a requirement.

 From now on, if I ever engage in a discussion similar to this, I'll name
this specific brand of open source BOP: Business Open Source.  :D


> Result : big crisis (some near to injuries) all over the place, and
> people shouting “if this is not free, this is not open source, because
> Richard Stallman said so, and all people though this was a very clever
> idea (they love him very for that).


The FOSS movement is, IMHO, on to something. I might not agree with
everything that's coming from RS, but I do like the fact that him and
his people are trying to rid the world of black box software.

If I hire a musician to compose something, the end result is fully
visible to me. I can even check out some of the artists former work,
to help me judge the quality of his/her work. My ability to do so does
not in any way impede on the composers copyright.

If I hire a carpenter to design and build me a house, I can see what he
is doing and I'm not forced to call the same carpenter 5 years later
just because I need to change a window. My ability to do so does not
change the carpenters copyright. The house is still his design, and I
just can't go building verbatim copies of his design without him
granting me license to do so.

If I buy a car, I can change it as I see fit. I can take it apart and
see how it works. I can customize it to suit my specific needs. This
does not change the fact that I can't start my own car production and
freely build copies of the car. The vendor is protected by the
copyright laws.

But when buying software, I'm usually kept in the dark. No tinkering,
no learning, no self-maintenance, no nothing. It's a black box. It's
hard to judge the quality of a vendors products, when you can't actually
see the product.

I've heard a lot of excuses for this black box mentality, and all of 
them suck.


> So try to attack the another way, and replied “but why not try to see
> both the price and the open-source characteristic apart ?” I feel
> indeed, price is a trait and open-source is another trait, and based on
> this (if this were not different things, the same word could be used to
> express both) I asked them : what is the most important for you in, say,
> Linux : “the price which is zero, or its open-source trait”. Short talk
> : impossible to get a single answer to this question, all replies was of
> the form “open-source = free, why don't you want to say all every one
> tell you here ?”. No way to make them understand these are two different
> traits (technically, these are).


The most important aspect of Linux, to me, is the freedom it gives me.

I don't care about the price. I pay for each and every Slackware update.

I like not being bound to any one vendor. I like knowing that Linux will
probably exist in some form or another in many years. I like to know
that I've build my companys IT infrastructure on something that isn't
controlled by one vendor and said vendors more or less fickle
share-holders.

I like the fact that if the need should ever arise, I can hire X amount
of programmers and have them implement whatever it is _my_ business
needs.

Freedom.


> Open-source and free are simply synonymous all over the web and in near
> to all minds.


You are probably right.

-- 
Regards,
Thomas Løcke

Email: tl at ada-dk.org
Web: http:ada-dk.org
IRC nick: ThomasLocke

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:06:25 +0200, Thomas L�cke wrote:

> If I buy a car, I can change it as I see fit.

You cannot, there are serious limitations on what you allowed to do, at
least in Germany.

> I can take it apart and see how it works.

This also may be forbidden. I believe taking apart a DVD player is
punishable under the DMCA. 

> I can customize it to suit my specific needs.

According to the recent court rulings you can't even sell the thing you
once bought:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/first-sale-doctrine/

> But when buying software, I'm usually kept in the dark. No tinkering,
> no learning, no self-maintenance, no nothing. It's a black box.

No, the problem is that the black box is sold with no warranty. The
producer must be liable to his product. The rule must be: more you close,
more responsibility you have to take for the money you charged.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[J-P. Rosen]

Le 28/10/2010 08:06, Thomas Løcke a écrit :
> I understand the GPL and I understand the OSI definition.
> 
> It just so happens that I think of open source in broader terms. When I
> buy a piece of software, I consider it open source if I have access to
> the source, if I can freely tinker with it for my own needs and if I can
> keep maintaining the software after official support has been dropped
> for it by the vendor. Redistribution is not a requirement.
> 

Yes. I agree that "Open Source" should mean software where the source is
open, and the more restrictive view should be called "free". After all,
FOSS means "free and open source software", so there must be a difference...

I also think that "object oriented design" should refer to a design
whose structure is oriented by the notion of object, which does not
necessarily imply classification and inheritence. The latter should
better be called "classification oriented design".

But it's not the way those terms are used. Sigh...
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Adalog a déménagé / Adalog has moved:
2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX
Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Thomas Løcke]

On 2010-10-28 10:19, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:06:25 +0200, Thomas L�cke wrote:
>
>> If I buy a car, I can change it as I see fit.
>
> You cannot, there are serious limitations on what you allowed to do, at
> least in Germany.


Luckily I don't live in Germany then!

The limitations in Denmark are solely a matter of whether your changed
vehicle is allowed to drive on public roads, ie. can you get a license-
plate for it.

There are no laws in place that hinders me in taking my brand new Ford
apart and mess around with it for my own personal use.


>> I can take it apart and see how it works.
>
> This also may be forbidden. I believe taking apart a DVD player is
> punishable under the DMCA.


The DMCA has no effect in Denmark.


> According to the recent court rulings you can't even sell the thing you
> once bought:
>
> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/first-sale-doctrine/


You can in the EU.


>> But when buying software, I'm usually kept in the dark. No tinkering,
>> no learning, no self-maintenance, no nothing. It's a black box.
>
> No, the problem is that the black box is sold with no warranty. The
> producer must be liable to his product. The rule must be: more you close,
> more responsibility you have to take for the money you charged.


Hmm.. Yes and no.

Back in 2000 I bought a product from a vendor. This product is an
important part of my business. It has over the years evolved, and
they've kept it running to my satisfaction. I've paid them A LOT of
money to develop new features.

Then came Windows 7.

The vendor refused to update the software to be able to run on Win7,
and while they were at it, they also decided to stop supporting the
product completely.

They do not intend to offer a version 2 of this product.

The result of this is that my business is now running on borrowed
time. There are no similar products readily available, and the ones
there are, would require completely redifining how my business operates,
re-schooling all my employees and telling customers that services
they've relied on for many years are going to vanish.

I've asked if I could buy the source, and was met with a blank stare.

Black box.

An extended warranty would hardly have solved this issue. This one
piece of software, which 2 years ago was just a tool, has become a
ticking bomb.

I can't upgrade to Win7. I can't get support. I can't do anything about
it. I'm stuck on XP with a software suite that has been abandoned
without any prior warning.

Fundamentally this is of course my own fault. Back in 1998-9 when I
scoped the market for suitable products, I should of course have
required a guarantee from the vendor that they product would not
suddenly get dropped and that they would upgrade it to newer version
of the Windows OS. Or I should just have required the full source. But
then I would probably not have been able to buy it at all.  :o)

-- 
Regards,
Thomas L�cke

Email: tl at ada-dk.org
Web: http:ada-dk.org
IRC nick: ThomasLocke

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:41:27 +0200, Thomas L�cke wrote:

> On 2010-10-28 10:19, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:06:25 +0200, Thomas L�cke wrote:
>>
>>> If I buy a car, I can change it as I see fit.
>>
>> You cannot, there are serious limitations on what you allowed to do, at
>> least in Germany.
> 
> Luckily I don't live in Germany then!
> 
> The limitations in Denmark are solely a matter of whether your changed
> vehicle is allowed to drive on public roads, ie. can you get a license-
> plate for it.

This is what I meant, a car you cannot drive is not a car.

>>> I can take it apart and see how it works.
>>
>> This also may be forbidden. I believe taking apart a DVD player is
>> punishable under the DMCA.
> 
> The DMCA has no effect in Denmark.

For how long? 

>> According to the recent court rulings you can't even sell the thing you
>> once bought:
>>
>> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/first-sale-doctrine/
> 
> You can in the EU.

Maybe yes, maybe no. The Pirate bay guys thought they have a right to turn
on a server and put it in the Internet. They were convicted in Sweden, an
EU member.

>>> But when buying software, I'm usually kept in the dark. No tinkering,
>>> no learning, no self-maintenance, no nothing. It's a black box.
>>
>> No, the problem is that the black box is sold with no warranty. The
>> producer must be liable to his product. The rule must be: more you close,
>> more responsibility you have to take for the money you charged.
> 
> Hmm.. Yes and no.
> 
> Back in 2000 I bought a product from a vendor. This product is an
> important part of my business. It has over the years evolved, and
> they've kept it running to my satisfaction. I've paid them A LOT of
> money to develop new features.
> 
> Then came Windows 7.
> 
> The vendor refused to update the software to be able to run on Win7,
> and while they were at it, they also decided to stop supporting the
> product completely.
> 
> They do not intend to offer a version 2 of this product.
> 
> The result of this is that my business is now running on borrowed
> time. There are no similar products readily available, and the ones
> there are, would require completely redifining how my business operates,
> re-schooling all my employees and telling customers that services
> they've relied on for many years are going to vanish.
> 
> I've asked if I could buy the source, and was met with a blank stare.
> 
> Black box.

Let you buy a necktie, which later goes out of fashion. That is your tie
and your problem.

> An extended warranty would hardly have solved this issue. This one
> piece of software, which 2 years ago was just a tool, has become a
> ticking bomb.
> 
> I can't upgrade to Win7. I can't get support. I can't do anything about
> it. I'm stuck on XP with a software suite that has been abandoned
> without any prior warning.
> 
> Fundamentally this is of course my own fault. Back in 1998-9 when I
> scoped the market for suitable products, I should of course have
> required a guarantee from the vendor that they product would not
> suddenly get dropped and that they would upgrade it to newer version
> of the Windows OS. Or I should just have required the full source. But
> then I would probably not have been able to buy it at all.  :o)

You should require MS to keep Windows backward compatible.

Economically open source does not solve the problem. Because software
developing vs. maintenance costs are estimated 1 to 10. That means,
economically it just does not make any sense to maintain others' products
at any statistically relevant scale. It can function only as a rare
exception, i.e. economically irrelevant.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:12:25 +0200, J-P. Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr> a écrit:
> I also think that "object oriented design" should refer to a design
> whose structure is oriented by the notion of object, which does not
> necessarily imply classification and inheritence. The latter should
> better be called "classification oriented design".
>
> But it's not the way those terms are used. Sigh...
Good catch!


-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Warren]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1996 bytes --]

Dmitry A. Kazakov expounded in news:19rlit851kct1$.db26uwez2yg7$.dlg@
40tude.net:

> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:06:25 +0200, Thomas L�cke wrote:
> 
>> If I buy a car, I can change it as I see fit.
> 
> You cannot, there are serious limitations on what you allowed to do, at
> least in Germany.

At a practical level, this is becoming much more 
difficult than it use to be.  Now, much is buried
in some MCU which has its fuses burnt to prevent
any reverse engineering of EPROM.

But as to the original point in relation to software, 
I fully agree.

>> I can take it apart and see how it works.
> 
> This also may be forbidden. I believe taking apart a DVD player is
> punishable under the DMCA. 

I think if you check into it (anyone?) it is only verboten 
if you publish what you find out or produce a product that
makes it possible to defeat it.

No one is going to get punished by opening their DVD player
and running tests on it in their home. Even if you invited an
inspector into your home to watch, I seriously doubt that
any charges can be filed at this point (with the testing
excluding actual viewing/listening).

As to whether or not it is verboten to break the DMCA in 
the privacy of your own home for your private 
listening/viewing is debatable. In law, it probably is, 
but you'd have to invite someone in to see you doing so.

>> But when buying software, I'm usually kept in the dark. No tinkering,
>> no learning, no self-maintenance, no nothing. It's a black box.
> 
> No, the problem is that the black box is sold with no warranty. 

The warranty is meaningless if the changes/fixes you need
will not be supported by the vendor. Or perhaps the extra
fees involved or timelines are not suitable.

With open sourced software, if you yourself can't make
the enhancement/fix, you are able to hire anyone you
please to do so.

So you can pay for a black box with or without support, 
or you can pay someone to support your free software. 

It is simply a buyer's choice.

Warren

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Nicholas Collin Paul Gloster]

J-P. Rosen <rosen@Adalog.Fr> sent on October 28th, 2010:

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[..]                                                                       |
|                                                                            |
|[..]                                                                        |
|[..] After all,                                                             |
|FOSS means "free and open source software", so there must be a difference...|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Conjunction does not require disjunction.

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[..] a design                                                              |
|whose structure is oriented by the notion of object, which does not         |
|necessarily imply classification and inheritence."                          |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Agreed.

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|" The latter should                                                         |
|better be called "classification oriented design".                          |
|                                                                            |
|[..]"                                                                       |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Did class-based object orientation go out of fashion?

One can use classes without inheritance. Why would "classification
oriented design" necessarily involve inheritance?

Yours sincerely,
Nicholas Collin Paul

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[J-P. Rosen]

Le 28/10/2010 19:58, Nicholas Collin Paul Gloster a �crit :
> J-P. Rosen <rosen@Adalog.Fr> sent on October 28th, 2010:
> Did class-based object orientation go out of fashion?
> 
> One can use classes without inheritance. Why would "classification
> oriented design" necessarily involve inheritance?
> 
Definition of names is always difficult... I really meant hierarchical
classes (as opposed to composition).

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Adalog a d�m�nag� / Adalog has moved:
2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX
Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Thomas Løcke]

On 2010-10-28 15:01, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> This is what I meant, a car you cannot drive is not a car.


Of course it's a car. I might've customized it for racing purposes, or
other special needs.


> For how long?


I don't know, but not now.


> Maybe yes, maybe no. The Pirate bay guys thought they have a right to turn
> on a server and put it in the Internet. They were convicted in Sweden, an
> EU member.


No "maybe" about it. You can sell used software in EU without issue.

There's a ruling from the EU court.


> Let you buy a necktie, which later goes out of fashion. That is your tie
> and your problem.


Not the same thing.

The tie is a one-shot expense, and it does indeed go out of style, 
sooner or later.

This specific software has been kept "modern" by regular updates (paid
for by me). Never once have the vendor hinted that they would one day,
abruptly, kill the product.

The interesting part was that they actually accepted payment of $15K
for adding some very minor features, only 6 months prior to dumping the
product.


> You should require MS to keep Windows backward compatible.


Yes, well....


> Economically open source does not solve the problem. Because software
> developing vs. maintenance costs are estimated 1 to 10. That means,
> economically it just does not make any sense to maintain others' products
> at any statistically relevant scale. It can function only as a rare
> exception, i.e. economically irrelevant.


I'm not asking the vendor to maintain software from another vendor. I'm
asking them to maintain their own software, which I've bought and paid
for.

I've bought the software.
I've paid monthly service/support-fees since day one.
I've paid for numerous new features.

Never once has the vendor told me "By the way Thomas, please note that
in a few years we'll stop supporting this product". Or something
similar.

Open source would've solved my problem. Open source would've made sure
that my 17 employees could count on still having a job in the near
future.

With black box software you simply never know. One day you're happily
running your business, the next it's all tumbling down on you. And I'm
of course only referring to businesses which rely on software as a part
of their core product.

-- 
Regards,
Thomas L�cke

Email: tl at ada-dk.org
Web: http:ada-dk.org
IRC nick: ThomasLocke

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:21:06 +0200, Thomas L�cke wrote:

> On 2010-10-28 15:01, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

>> Let you buy a necktie, which later goes out of fashion. That is your tie
>> and your problem.
> 
> Not the same thing.
> 
> The tie is a one-shot expense, and it does indeed go out of style, 
> sooner or later.

Software never wears off, so you get even more than in the case of a tie.

Why a motherboard can be discontinued without publishing technical
documentation and software cannot?

> This specific software has been kept "modern" by regular updates (paid
> for by me). Never once have the vendor hinted that they would one day,
> abruptly, kill the product.

Why should they? You bought a service, it was terminated. Buy the sources,
the vendor or re-write it from scratch. I don't see any problem here. I do
with software use licenses, no warranty licenses, software patents, reverse
engineering verbot.

> Open source would've solved my problem. Open source would've made sure
> that my 17 employees could count on still having a job in the near
> future.

For you, yes, but at the macro economical level, as a model, open source
cannot work. There is no return to the natural economy.

> With black box software you simply never know.

This is normal. I go to the shop and see that the product I used to buy is
no more available. Bad luck. Software update is a product as any other.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Ludovic Brenta]

Dmitry A. Kazakov writes on comp.lang.ada:
>> Open source would've solved my problem. Open source would've made
>> sure that my 17 employees could count on still having a job in the
>> near future.
>
> For you, yes, but at the macro economical level, as a model, open
> source cannot work. There is no return to the natural economy.

I'm not even sure what you mean by that but what you call "the
macro-economical level" is completely irrelevant to one business
deciding whether or not they need the sources of the software they're
buying.  And a manager who buys black-box software is simply making a
mistake, the size of which is commensurate to how much the business
depends on that software.  Thomas learned from that past mistake and you
would be well-advised to listen to him.

>> With black box software you simply never know.
>
> This is normal. I go to the shop and see that the product I used to
> buy is no more available. Bad luck. Software update is a product as
> any other.

This may be normal but it is stupid to allow your business to depend on
something you don't know, without a practical or economical way out if
things don't evolve as you wish.

If a software vendor wants to hide their sources from me, I can only see
two explanations:

- their sources are so ugly I'd never want to run their software if I
  did see them;

- they want to turn me into a captive customer, which I absolutely
  refuse to be.

If I were running a business, if a vendor refused to give me their
sources then I would refuse to give them my money.  Simple as that.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Thomas Løcke]

On 2010-10-28 22:18, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> Why a motherboard can be discontinued without publishing technical
> documentation and software cannot?


A motherboard will rarely set you back several $100K.

Also with hardware it's simple to just buy as many as you suspect you're
going to need in the future. Even if Sun stops producing hardware for my
4270 servers, I can still keep them running for a loooong time, simply
because I've bought a load of spare parts. If I run out, there's a good 
chance I can just switch to another x86_64 platform, without the
software ever noticing.

Hardware usually does not require educating your staff in usage. It
just sits there, behind the scenes. This software is at the frontline;
it is being used by actual people on a daily basis. It defines how we
service our customers. It is an integral part of our product. The
hardware it runs on is not.

Software /= hardware.


> Why should they? You bought a service, it was terminated.


Exactly. Which is why I'll never ever buy closed source software again.


> This is normal. I go to the shop and see that the product I used to buy is
> no more available. Bad luck. Software update is a product as any other.


Dmitry, I don't think we're ever going to agree on this. This is
probably due to the fact that I've been burned _badly_ by closed source
software twice in my career.

I simply don't trust closed source software vendors. Or rather, I don't
trust them with my livelihood (or the livelihood of my employees).

I'm biased.

-- 
Regards,
Thomas L�cke

Email: tl at ada-dk.org
Web: http:ada-dk.org
IRC nick: ThomasLocke

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:33:37 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> And a manager who buys black-box software is simply making a
> mistake, the size of which is commensurate to how much the business
> depends on that software.

He has no choice, there are other parameters more important than
availability of sources.

Even if he had, that is not the point. Which is whether open source could
contribute to software quality. It could not.

> Thomas learned from that past mistake and you
> would be well-advised to listen to him.

No, I wouldn't. I don't care about the sources of the car ignition system's
software. I don't care about ones of the TV set and so on and so forth.
Even a professional software developer cannot maintain all software he buys
directly or indirectly. What about the rest 99% customers? This model
cannot work.
 
>>> With black box software you simply never know.
>>
>> This is normal. I go to the shop and see that the product I used to
>> buy is no more available. Bad luck. Software update is a product as
>> any other.
> 
> This may be normal but it is stupid to allow your business to depend on
> something you don't know, without a practical or economical way out if
> things don't evolve as you wish.

You cannot be in control of everything. You have to outsource. If a piece
of software is so vital to your business, just don't buy it, or else make
the vendor liable. As simple as that. The problem is that vendors have too
much power over customers. The only solution I see, is a law enforcing
liability to sold software. Open or free source will never solve it.

> If I were running a business, if a vendor refused to give me their
> sources then I would refuse to give them my money.

That is your right, but in reality you drive a car, you watch TV, you own a
mobile phone, a watch, a freezer etc. In 20 years electric bulbs will have
software. There is no return.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Brian Drummond]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:21:06 +0200, Thomas L�cke <tl@ada-dk.org> wrote:

>I've bought the software.
>I've paid monthly service/support-fees since day one.
>I've paid for numerous new features.
>
>Never once has the vendor told me "By the way Thomas, please note that
>in a few years we'll stop supporting this product". Or something
>similar.
>
>Open source would've solved my problem. Open source would've made sure
>that my 17 employees could count on still having a job in the near
>future.

It still might.

I have been quite impressed by recent versions of Wine, (1.3 and up) and its
improving ability to run Windows software that my Windows machine can't. 
(Admittedly, I haven't upgraded it to XP yet...)

Have you tried it as a way of keeping your application alive?

- Brian

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:02:46 +0200, Thomas L�cke wrote:

> I simply don't trust closed source software vendors. Or rather, I don't
> trust them with my livelihood (or the livelihood of my employees).

But I don't object to that. It is your right to include sources into your
requirements. Most of our customers do. Nevertheless this model will remain
marginal.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 10/28/10 11:19 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:33:37 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> You cannot be in control of everything. You have to outsource.

(I'd guess that in the Ada business, outsourcing need is felt
to be less pressing, if billion dollar organizations have deep
pockets and/or "national interest"?)

>  The problem is that vendors have too
> much power over customers. The only solution I see, is a law enforcing
> liability to sold software. Open or free source will never solve it.

   +                                        +
  + +                                      + +
   +                                        +
           Public Open Standards !
   +                                        +
  + +                                      + +
   +                                        +


Standards (of the kind without patents on trivial algorithms
subverting them) are an effective tool in the hands of
customers preferring not to depend on a single solution.
Standards leave a choice.

Standard protocols, standard languages, standard file formats:
if these are enforced in a market, they prevent entrepreneurial
attempts at controlling the customers.  If a producer wants
to offer something in the market, it has to meet certain standards.

For example, one market rule might require that it be possible
to exchange basic text data between any smart phone and any
content management system to be used by larger organizations.

Or that it be possible to translate a standard Ada program with
any Ada compiler.  Then software makers will be able  to  choose
a compiler, not be forced to use a specific one and depend on
the whim of its producer.  Then compiler makers will know there
is a larger group of prospective customers all wanting the same
standard Ada as a basis.


Georg

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Chad R. Meiners]

On Oct 28, 5:41 am, Thomas Løcke <t...@ada-dk.org> wrote:
> Hmm.. Yes and no.
>
> Back in 2000 I bought a product from a vendor. This product is an
> important part of my business. It has over the years evolved, and
> they've kept it running to my satisfaction. I've paid them A LOT of
> money to develop new features.
>
> Then came Windows 7.
>
> The vendor refused to update the software to be able to run on Win7,
> and while they were at it, they also decided to stop supporting the
> product completely.
>
> They do not intend to offer a version 2 of this product.
>
> The result of this is that my business is now running on borrowed
> time. There are no similar products readily available, and the ones
> there are, would require completely redifining how my business operates,
> re-schooling all my employees and telling customers that services
> they've relied on for many years are going to vanish.
>
> I've asked if I could buy the source, and was met with a blank stare.
>
> Black box.
>
> An extended warranty would hardly have solved this issue. This one
> piece of software, which 2 years ago was just a tool, has become a
> ticking bomb.
>
> I can't upgrade to Win7. I can't get support. I can't do anything about
> it. I'm stuck on XP with a software suite that has been abandoned
> without any prior warning.

Can you not run the software on Windows 7 with a VM of XP?  I know
this does not help with the problem of the dropped support for the the
software.

I would surmise that the company is dropping support because it is no
longer profitable to maintain the code base.  This could be due to a
variety of factors.   In the case you bought access to the code, you
may not be able to add any new features that you desire for reasonable
cost.

I agree that if you had access to the code to begin with, your risk
mitigation would be easier.  However, if you did not take an active
role in the code's development, you could still be left with a mess of
code that is of no benefit.   I have built systems that when they
where returned to me to fix, they where unrecognizable.  I had access
to the code during the whole process, but I was too busy to maintain a
watch over it.  As a result, I had to scrap the existing systems and
start a new one because the time spent fixing the damage was more than
starting over.

I agree this situation is not good, but I don't know if open source
would have fixed it.  Maybe it would have helped you realize that
there was a problem sooner.  I do hope that the situation resolves in
your favor, but I don't think the problem is due to close source, but
instead it is due to the vendor not representing its and your
situation correctly.   It seems that instead of relying on open source
you should insist of guarantees (by law) of availability and support.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Thomas Løcke]

On 2010-10-28 23:28, Brian Drummond wrote:
> I have been quite impressed by recent versions of Wine, (1.3 and up) and its
> improving ability to run Windows software that my Windows machine can't.
> (Admittedly, I haven't upgraded it to XP yet...)
>
> Have you tried it as a way of keeping your application alive?


Ahh yes, Wine!

Wine is a fantastic piece of software, and it was one of the first
things I tried.

Sadly it didn't work.

-- 
Regards,
Thomas L�cke

Email: tl at ada-dk.org
Web: http:ada-dk.org
IRC nick: ThomasLocke

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:37:02 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 10/28/10 11:19 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

>>  The problem is that vendors have too
>> much power over customers. The only solution I see, is a law enforcing
>> liability to sold software. Open or free source will never solve it.
> 
>    +                                        +
>   + +                                      + +
>    +                                        +
>            Public Open Standards !
>    +                                        +
>   + +                                      + +
>    +                                        +

No, FREE standards! I find it unacceptable when organizations charge money
for standards.

> Standard protocols, standard languages, standard file formats:
> if these are enforced in a market, they prevent entrepreneurial
> attempts at controlling the customers.

Yes, they became a vehicle for unfair competition, because the software
market was destroyed. That does not imply standards are evil. The monopoly
is.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 10/29/10 10:00 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 01:37:02 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/10 11:19 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>
>>>   The problem is that vendors have too
>>> much power over customers. The only solution I see, is a law enforcing
>>> liability to sold software. Open or free source will never solve it.
>>
>>     +                                        +
>>    + +                                      + +
>>     +                                        +
>>             Public Open Standards !
>>     +                                        +
>>    + +                                      + +
>>     +                                        +
>
> No, FREE standards! I find it unacceptable when organizations charge money
> for standards.

Cost free standards imply some funding of standardization work.
Who does?

A quick overview of DIN's financing is here,
http://www.din.de/cmd?menuid=47391&cmsareaid=47391&menurubricid=47517&level=tpl-rubrik&cmsrubid=47517&languageid=de
(English version linked near the top)

More than two thirds is in sales.

Wouldn't fully tax based standardization work be evil
socialism?  ;-)

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:19:16 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> Wouldn't fully tax based standardization work be evil
> socialism?  ;-)

Sure, but a free market of standards would be a much bigger evil.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[stefan-lucks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1229 bytes --]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Thomas L�cke wrote:

> On 2010-10-28 10:19, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:06:25 +0200, Thomas L�cke wrote:
> >
> > > If I buy a car, I can change it as I see fit.
> >
> > You cannot, there are serious limitations on what you allowed to do, at
> > least in Germany.
> 
> 
> Luckily I don't live in Germany then!
> 
> The limitations in Denmark are solely a matter of whether your changed
> vehicle is allowed to drive on public roads, ie. can you get a license-
> plate for it.
> 
> There are no laws in place that hinders me in taking my brand new Ford
> apart and mess around with it for my own personal use.
> 

This is the same in Germany. What you do with your car in your garage is 
your business, but then you mustn't drive (or even park) on public roads. 
Apart from that, you are free to tamper with your car in your own garage. 

(There are some exceptions. You must not damage the environment, by, e.g., 
intentionally burning down your own car intentionally)

-- 
------ Stefan Lucks   --  Bauhaus-University Weimar  --   Germany  ------
               Stefan dot Lucks at uni minus weimar dot de
------  I  love  the  taste  of  Cryptanalysis  in  the  morning!  ------

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Thomas Løcke]

On 2010-10-29 16:04, Brian Drummond wrote:
> It's probably worth asking when you tried it.


I test it on a regular basis. Latest test was done with 1.3.5.


> My experience is that a lot of things that didn't work a few versions ago, now
> do. Including PCB layout packages, Amazon Kindle for Windows, and (ahem) Plants
> vs Zombies...


I can add Steam and L4D to that (ahem) list.  :o)


> On the other hand, if your application needs to access special PCI hardware, you
> are probably still SOL.


That is the big stumbling block. I make heavy use of Intel dialogic
cards, and they've so far utterly refused to do anything when using
Wine.

So yea, I'm SOL.

-- 
Regards,
Thomas L�cke

Email: tl at ada-dk.org
Web: http:ada-dk.org
IRC nick: ThomasLocke

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Brian Drummond]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 07:13:52 +0200, Thomas L�cke <tl@ada-dk.org> wrote:

>On 2010-10-28 23:28, Brian Drummond wrote:
>> I have been quite impressed by recent versions of Wine, (1.3 and up) 

>Ahh yes, Wine!
>
>Wine is a fantastic piece of software, and it was one of the first
>things I tried.
>
>Sadly it didn't work.

It's probably worth asking when you tried it.

My experience is that a lot of things that didn't work a few versions ago, now
do. Including PCB layout packages, Amazon Kindle for Windows, and (ahem) Plants
vs Zombies...

So if you tried (say) v1.2 or earlier, it may be worth another look.

On the other hand, if your application needs to access special PCI hardware, you
are probably still SOL.

- Brian

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:00:37 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
>>    +                                        +
>>   + +                                      + +
>>    +                                        +
>>            Public Open Standards !
>>    +                                        +
>>   + +                                      + +
>>    +                                        +
>
> No, FREE standards! I find it unacceptable when organizations charge  
> money
> for standards.
If the standard is widely used, even when it is for too much fees (for  
someones), there are still workarounds with none-official documentations.  
Look at ASIS specification or the MIDI specification. But true someones  
are more restrictive and may requires you close any web page documenting  
the standard (it use to be with one hardware standard, I forget the name,  
something near to PCI or USB, but not these).

>> Standard protocols, standard languages, standard file formats:
>> if these are enforced in a market, they prevent entrepreneurial
>> attempts at controlling the customers.
>
> Yes, they became a vehicle for unfair competition, because the software
> market was destroyed. That does not imply standards are evil. The  
> monopoly
> is.
Does not solve anything, but not responsible for that (I see what you  
mean).

Some standard are as much unavoidable as natural languages. Probably yes,  
this ones are expected to be accessible; in practice, I believe these are.  
Do not see a real trouble there (unless someones witness opposite  
experiences).


-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:19:16 +0200, Georg Bauhaus  
<rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de> a écrit:
> Cost free standards imply some funding of standardization work.
> Who does?
Right (about funding the work). But the price has to be balanced, and it  
is not easy to balance. For Mr X, $250 may be easily accessible, for Mr Y,  
this may be just a dream.

-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Vinzent Hoefler]

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:17:31 +0200, J-P. Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr> wrote:

> Le 28/10/2010 19:58, Nicholas Collin Paul Gloster a écrit :
>> J-P. Rosen <rosen@Adalog.Fr> sent on October 28th, 2010:
>> Did class-based object orientation go out of fashion?
>>
>> One can use classes without inheritance. Why would "classification
>> oriented design" necessarily involve inheritance?
>>
> Definition of names is always difficult... I really meant hierarchical
> classes (as opposed to composition).

Why don't you just say "HOOD" if you mean it? ;)


Vinzent.

-- 
There is no signature.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Fri, 29 Oct 2010 20:59:21 +0200, Vinzent Hoefler  
<nntp-2010-10@t-domaingrabbing.de> a écrit:
>> Le 28/10/2010 19:58, Nicholas Collin Paul Gloster a écrit :
>>> J-P. Rosen <rosen@Adalog.Fr> sent on October 28th, 2010:
>>> Did class-based object orientation go out of fashion?
>>>
>>> One can use classes without inheritance. Why would "classification
>>> oriented design" necessarily involve inheritance?
>>>
>> Definition of names is always difficult... I really meant hierarchical
>> classes (as opposed to composition).
>
> Why don't you just say "HOOD" if you mean it? ;)
I would enjoy to learn more about what's wrong with inheritance (I know  
this cannot model every thing of real life, but here the area is more  
restricted) and as much about classification without inheritance (I  
understand classification does not implies inheritance, but I would like  
to understand how and why inheritance should be avoided).

I do not mean I have strictly no idea about this, just that I wish you  
both tell more.

-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[J-P. Rosen]

Le 29/10/2010 21:56, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) a écrit :
> I would enjoy to learn more about what's wrong with inheritance (I know
> this cannot model every thing of real life, but here the area is more
> restricted) and as much about classification without inheritance (I
> understand classification does not implies inheritance, but I would like
> to understand how and why inheritance should be avoided).
> 
> I do not mean I have strictly no idea about this, just that I wish you
> both tell more.
> 

Short answers:
1) Complexity of projects that use inheritance tends to grow quadratic
2) No other discipline of engineering uses classification as a /design/
method; classification is used to organize artifacts after they have
been designed
3) Not all people find classification natural. I don't know whether it
is linked to left-brained or right-brained people, but there are huge
variations among people.

Long answer:
If you can read french, see
http://fr.wikibooks.org/wiki/M%C3%A9thodes_de_g%C3%A9nie_logiciel_avec_Ada
especially part 2, and chapter 2.4 for a comparison of composition and
classification
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Adalog a déménagé / Adalog has moved:
2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX
Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Fri, 29 Oct 2010 22:28:59 +0200, J-P. Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr> a écrit:

> Le 29/10/2010 21:56, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) a écrit :
>> I would enjoy to learn more about what's wrong with inheritance (I know
>> this cannot model every thing of real life, but here the area is more
>> restricted) and as much about classification without inheritance (I
>> understand classification does not implies inheritance, but I would like
>> to understand how and why inheritance should be avoided).
>>
>> I do not mean I have strictly no idea about this, just that I wish you
>> both tell more.
>>
>
> Short answers:
> 1) Complexity of projects that use inheritance tends to grow quadratic
> 2) No other discipline of engineering uses classification as a /design/
> method; classification is used to organize artifacts after they have
> been designed
> 3) Not all people find classification natural. I don't know whether it
> is linked to left-brained or right-brained people, but there are huge
> variations among people.
>
> Long answer:
> If you can read french, see
> http://fr.wikibooks.org/wiki/M%C3%A9thodes_de_g%C3%A9nie_logiciel_avec_Ada
> especially part 2, and chapter 2.4 for a comparison of composition and
> classification

Part two is a bit ambiguously located, it stands for number #4. This is  
here :
http://fr.wikibooks.org/wiki/M%E9thodes_de_g%E9nie_logiciel_avec_Ada/Deuxi%E8me_partie
So the aforementioned 2.4 is there
http://fr.wikibooks.org/wiki/M%E9thodes_de_g%E9nie_logiciel_avec_Ada/Deuxi%E8me_partie#Classification_ou_composition.3F

I am on the way to read this right now.

-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Vinzent Hoefler]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:56:22 +0200, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> I would enjoy to learn more about what's wrong with inheritance (I know
> this cannot model every thing of real life, but here the area is more
> restricted) and as much about classification without inheritance (I
> understand classification does not implies inheritance, but I would like
> to understand how and why inheritance should be avoided).

Just having inheritance is not really a problem. Basically you get inheritance
with each Ada subtype you derive from another, because the new subtype inherits
the operation from its parent subtype:

     type Saturated_Integer is new Natural;

Thus, inheritance is very hard to avoid in Ada. Now suppose:

     function "+" (Left, Right : Saturated_Integer) return Saturated_Integer
     is
     begin
        return
          Saturated_Integer (Saturated_Integer'Base (Left) +
                             Saturated_Integer'Base (Right));
     exception
        when Constraint_Error =>
           return Saturated_Integer'Last;
     end;

So, in the object oriented view the above already uses overriding and view
conversion.

The problems start with the dynamic properties, where the operations on the
types can not be resolved statically anymore, because these are very hard
to prove for correctness. They may even call subroutines which are completely
out of the scope of the unit you're calling it from.

And if you don't want (or are not allowed, because the Software Programmer's
Manual says so) to use class-wide programming, then there's usually no point
in using inheritance at all. ;)

Well, I better shut up now, Jean-Pierre is the expert on that, I am just a
user. ;)


Vinzent.

-- 
There is no signature.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 30 Oct 2010 02:01:46 +0200, Vinzent Hoefler  
<nntp-2010-10@t-domaingrabbing.de> a écrit:
> The problems start with the dynamic properties, where the operations on  
> the
> types can not be resolved statically anymore, because these are very hard
> to prove for correctness. They may even call subroutines which are  
> completely
> out of the scope of the unit you're calling it from.
>
> And if you don't want (or are not allowed, because the Software  
> Programmer's
> Manual says so) to use class-wide programming, then there's usually no  
> point
> in using inheritance at all. ;)

To be more precise or exact, you may have missed to point the area these  
comments applies to. I guess this is right for some requirements (you  
talked about a manual, seems to contains restrictive requirements). Say  
it's universal is less obvious.

As an example of your objections, you said “They may even call subroutines  
which are completely out of the scope of the unit you're calling it from”  
: sometime this what is expected to be possible, most commonly with  
scripted application (which can extended with script). Better say this can  
occurs while it was not expected. Said this way, I would agree.

In areas, like UIs, if you avoid inheritance (and dynamic dispatching) you  
ends up with thousands of different types (the same applies with languages  
oriented applications, graphics oriented, and others). Ancestor-types  
helps to handle this proliferation of types. This is not always  
predictable when operations comes into the place, I agree, and weither or  
not it is, depends on the design, and is not at all enforced by the  
paradigm, agree too.

May be inheritance is dedicated to large complex set of types and  
composition where it needs to be predictable.

I've understood you complained, not about inheritance and rather about  
dynamic dispatching. But when inheritance come, dynamic dispatching is  
near to be there, just because if there is inheritance, you have to say  
what the operations associated to these types will become as inheritance  
goes (you can also make them all frozen, or never use class wide types,  
true).

I am not asserting anything, these are just some thoughts (did not  
finished to read the lectures suggested by Jean-Pierre, as I get into  
troubles with a modeling application in the while, sigh).

As another question to feed the talk : will you see a way to handle large  
set of types with composition ? Does composition provides another way to  
group by similarities and handle these groups as a whole ?

Now back to J-P's lectures.

-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Brian Drummond]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:03:03 +0200, Thomas L�cke <tl@ada-dk.org> wrote:

>On 2010-10-29 16:04, Brian Drummond wrote:
>> It's probably worth asking when you tried it.

>> On the other hand, if your application needs to access special PCI hardware, you
>> are probably still SOL.

>That is the big stumbling block. I make heavy use of Intel dialogic
>cards, and they've so far utterly refused to do anything when using
>Wine.
>
>So yea, I'm SOL.

Yeah. Asking Wine to support Windows device drivers under Linux is probably a
bit much... and expecting it to translate Win I/O requests to Linux drivers,
doubly so.

When faced with closed source (an FPGA prototyping solution) I went through
several virtualisation tools on Linux before I found one (KVM) that had recently
learned how to virtualise PCI slots, and let me select which PCI and USB devices
are passed through to the VM, and which are reserved to the host. 

There may be other virtualisation tools that can do so now, this was well over a
year ago. (VirtualBox closed source could handle USB but not PCI,  VB open
source and Xen could handle neither. One of them gave me a nice BSOD with Linux
happily running behind it!)

It still meant I had to install Windows (2000 in my case) on the virtual
machine. 

But at least KVM gave Windows a "vanilla" machine with no sharp corners to cut
itself on. Probably not a Microsoft supported combination, though...

It kept me going, but may not be a solution for mission-critical work.

- Brian 
(apologies for getting so far off topic)

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Florian Weimer]

* Georg Bauhaus:

> Cost free standards imply some funding of standardization work.
> Who does?
>
> A quick overview of DIN's financing is here,
> http://www.din.de/cmd?menuid=47391&cmsareaid=47391&menurubricid=47517&level=tpl-rubrik&cmsrubid=47517&languageid=de
> (English version linked near the top)

Can you name an information technology standard whose actual
development was funded by DIN?

I suspect that when they talk about work on standardization, they
refer exclusively to the bureaucratic aspects, not the technical
contents.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 10/30/10 11:50 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:

> Can you name an information technology standard whose actual
> development was funded by DIN?

I doubt that DIN wants to fund actual development of standards
other than by providing infrastructure, a platform, a single point
of service, rules needed, publication, etc.

> I suspect that when they talk about work on standardization, they
> refer exclusively to the bureaucratic aspects, not the technical
> contents.

Can we get the agreements and compromises that a standard
embodies and then have them archived, official, permanently
available without paper work being done in a standard place?
Shouldn't we, at some point, follow standard procedures to
get what a standard is expected to be?

More accessible and less expensive sources of information,
such as Wikipedia, need funding (donations), too.  Organizing
Wikipedia has established rules, a donation system...

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Vinzent Hoefler]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 02:30:05 +0200, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> To be more precise or exact, you may have missed to point the area these
> comments applies to. I guess this is right for some requirements (you
> talked about a manual, seems to contains restrictive requirements).

Yes. What we do is mission-critical at minimum. You should see the restriction
they put on _safety-critical_. ;)

> Say it's universal is less obvious.

Well, the problems that may appear are universal. The "risk assessment"
regarding the usage of such "potentially dangerous" features is not.

After all, a lot of software is written in C and other unsafe languages
and still works most of the time. ;)

> As an example of your objections, you said “They may even call subroutines
> which are completely out of the scope of the unit you're calling it from”
> : sometime this what is expected to be possible, most commonly with
> scripted application (which can extended with script). Better say this can
> occurs while it was not expected. Said this way, I would agree.

Let me put it this way: If you do it, you _have_ to expect it. If you're
happy with the possible consequences or not depends on other factors.

In other non-critical projects (support tools etc.) I already used tagged
types and even languages like Perl. Or GPS scripts in Python. If these
do something unexpected there's nothing more than just annoyance among the
developers. If our product does something unexpected, well... let me put
it this way: expressed in DO178B levels it would rank somewhere between
B and C.

> May be inheritance is dedicated to large complex set of types and
> composition where it needs to be predictable.

I could agree with that. :)

> I've understood you complained, not about inheritance and rather about
> dynamic dispatching. But when inheritance come, dynamic dispatching is
> near to be there, just because if there is inheritance, you have to say
> what the operations associated to these types will become as inheritance
> goes (you can also make them all frozen, or never use class wide types,
> true).

You understood correctly.

> As another question to feed the talk : will you see a way to handle large
> set of types with composition ?

It's certainly possible, yes.

> Does composition provides another way to
> group by similarities and handle these groups as a whole ?

Apart from generics I don't see any nice solutions, no.


Vinzent.

-- 
There is no signature.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Florian Weimer]

* Georg Bauhaus:

> On 10/30/10 11:50 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> I suspect that when they [DIN] talk about work on standardization,
>> they refer exclusively to the bureaucratic aspects, not the
>> technical contents.
>
> Can we get the agreements and compromises that a standard
> embodies and then have them archived, official, permanently
> available without paper work being done in a standard place?
> Shouldn't we, at some point, follow standard procedures to
> get what a standard is expected to be?

I've got trouble parsing this paragraph.

Anyway, I don't see value in standardization when the resulting
documents aren't freely available so that programmers have easy access
to them.  It's not clear to me why standardization needs heavyweight
processes, either.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 30 Oct 2010 14:58:41 +0200, Georg Bauhaus  
<rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de> a écrit:
> Can we get the agreements and compromises that a standard
> embodies and then have them archived, official, permanently
> available without paper work being done in a standard place?
> Shouldn't we, at some point, follow standard procedures to
> get what a standard is expected to be?
>
> More accessible and less expensive sources of information,
> such as Wikipedia, need funding (donations), too.  Organizing
> Wikipedia has established rules, a donation system...
To be a bit off-topic, I would say explicit funding may produce clearer  
things than what a,  
some-ones-fund-and-have-some-rights-some-others-dont-and-guess-what, can  
produce.

-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sat, 30 Oct 2010 19:48:00 +0200, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> a  
écrit:
>> Can we get the agreements and compromises that a standard
>> embodies and then have them archived, official, permanently
>> available without paper work being done in a standard place?
>> Shouldn't we, at some point, follow standard procedures to
>> get what a standard is expected to be?
>
> I've got trouble parsing this paragraph.
He said a standard expected to be produced using a standard process. He is  
right, as most of them indeed are : RFC, W3C-REC (Recommendations), ISO,  
ECMA (for a restricted set of the most famous). Note : RFC are not the  
ones I prefer, but are still a valuable source when there is no other else  
(just that there is a lack of consistency in quality from from standard to  
standard with the RFC).

> Anyway, I don't see value in standardization when the resulting
> documents aren't freely available so that programmers have easy access
> to them.
Not freely available, does not implies not accessible : the question rise  
of what an accessible fee is (unfortunately, there is no acceptable answer  
to this) and how else this may be accessible if possible. You may consult  
some at the library of some universities (in many countries, you do not  
even need to be a student for that), as well as buy a paper or numeric  
copy, which is the most guaranteed option. The trouble with the latter, is  
weither or not every interested party can afford this/that one. But that  
is another problem which cannot be solved at this level (otherwise, you  
are just hiding what is indeed a badly big issue).

Further more, most of the most useful standards are freely available any  
way (Ada, M2T, JVM, XML, HTTP, PNG, and so many else), and this is good  
enough to provide a level of equality of rights for knowledge.

> It's not clear to me why standardization needs heavyweight
> processes, either.
Because it needs to be heavily checked for language style (grammatical  
errors, spelling mistakes, good choice of words, good style of each  
sentences) and to be heavily checked for inconsistencies, ambiguities,  
explicitness, exhaustivity. Otherwise, you end up in multiple “personal”  
versions appearing everywhere to solve weakness (none being really fine,  
obviously). How “good” do you feel when you face an unclear standard text  
? (if you've already lived that)

To play its role, a standard needs to be understandable and clear, and  
understandable to as many people as possible.



By the way, “free”, does that really exist ? (another topic, but not the  
place for)


-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 10/30/10 7:48 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Georg Bauhaus:
>
>> On 10/30/10 11:50 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect that when they [DIN] talk about work on standardization,
>>> they refer exclusively to the bureaucratic aspects, not the
>>> technical contents.
>>
>> Can we get the agreements and compromises that a standard
>> embodies and then have them archived, official, permanently
>> available without paper work being done in a standard place?
>> Shouldn't we, at some point, follow standard procedures to
>> get what a standard is expected to be?
>
> I've got trouble parsing this paragraph.
>
> Anyway, I don't see value in standardization when the resulting
> documents aren't freely available

ISO Standards are freely available.  They are not stored
in dark caves, access prohibited.
They just cost money in most cases, like eveything else
does, too.  OSs, IDEs, compilers, ... (Yes, using GNAT
professionally typically costs money.)There's no such thing
as software production that doesn't cost money.  

But ISO standards defining major programming languages
either cost nothing, or they cost little (the price of a
book, e.g. in the case of C). Or draft documents are available
for free, if you need to get going.

> so that programmers have easy access
> to them.

What is "easy access" to mean?  Cost free? Immediately?
Integrated with translation tools?  Searchable with
the help of a computer?  Any definition will help.

> It's not clear to me why standardization needs heavyweight
> processes, either.

For critical assessment of program properties, a reliable copy
of a standards document is what you need.  Where do you get one?
What is the cost of making a standard available in this manner?
A standard is not the same thing as a manual, which might be
somewhat easier to produce, get right, fix, or defend.

As a low-cost programmer, I'm glad I have access to standards that
do not cost much.  Nevertheless, I see that standardizing things in
general needs costly negotiations: producers of standards compliant
goods might need to adapt their machines/tools/processes/knowledge to
the standards.  Negotiations entail processes. They take at least
time, and thus cost money.

So standards production costs money.  Who is going to pay?

If the answer is tax payers, then who is going to decide
which standard deserves what amount of tax payers' money?

If the answer is vendors, some do pay. Still, why would
they want to pay for something that doesn't let them do
what they want?

If the answer is customers, then that is the situation we see,
with one level of indirection (customers buy standards and
customers pay vendors, vendors buy standards and they
contribute to standardization.)

Granted, there is some voluntary work. Alas, voluntary work
is not sufficient, wikipedia demonstrates with its donation
weeks and with its established organizations.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:02:17 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> So standards production costs money.  Who is going to pay?

Who should pay for laws? Who does not mathematical theorems?

> If the answer is tax payers, then who is going to decide
> which standard deserves what amount of tax payers' money?

Which law does deserve money? There are things, which cannot and may not be
sold.

There was enough money for the laws about curved cucumbers and bent
bananas.

> If the answer is vendors, some do pay. Still, why would
> they want to pay for something that doesn't let them do
> what they want?

Because that would not let others do what they did before. E.g. Blue-ray
vs. HD DVD. God, protect us from vendor's standards.

> If the answer is customers,

Customers are always to pay.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 10/30/10 9:26 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:02:17 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>
>> So standards production costs money.  Who is going to pay?
>
> Who should pay for laws? Who does not mathematical theorems?
>
>> If the answer is tax payers, then who is going to decide
>> which standard deserves what amount of tax payers' money?
>
> Which law does deserve money? There are things, which cannot and may not be
> sold.
>
> There was enough money for the laws about curved cucumbers and bent
> bananas.

And?

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Fri, 29 Oct 2010 22:28:59 +0200, J-P. Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr> a écrit:
> Short answers:
> 1) Complexity of projects that use inheritance tends to grow quadratic
> 2) No other discipline of engineering uses classification as a /design/
> method; classification is used to organize artifacts after they have
> been designed
> 3) Not all people find classification natural. I don't know whether it
> is linked to left-brained or right-brained people, but there are huge
> variations among people.

May add classification is more static than composition, or at least,  
cannot evolve as easily as a construction built upon composition.

An example : the live beings are commonly subject to classification, but  
this is a flagrant case of distance with real life : live beings evolved  
such a way which make it impossible to be modeled with classification.  
Just think about the whales : first “amphibians” like all mammiformes,  
they later get legs to become animals living on the ground, then later  
again, loose their back legs to go back live to the aquatic world. A  
classification analysis would be broken all the time the story goes. And  
when will you decide their changed place in the classification ? This is a  
natural examples which show classification is not so much natural as one  
of the way to do OOD pretends.

I said classification may be good to handle large complex set of types (in  
reply to someone else), we may add this : classification may better suits  
well to what is static only (despite dynamic dispatching which is runtime  
only, the overall architecture is probably condemned to remain static).

A prediction to check would be that composition produce applications which  
are more easily updated and adapted to new specifications later after they  
were deployed (the corollary would be that in a similar case, a  
classification oriented designed application, would probably inspires the  
idea its better to re-start everything from the ground-up). To be checked…

-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sun, 31 Oct 2010 02:35:03 +0100, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)  
<yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> a écrit:
> May add classification is more static than composition, or at least,  
> cannot evolve as easily as a construction built upon composition.

About inheritance and polymorphism, which could be kept apart.

Let start with the most popular example : graphic objects.

Le say the graphic object have a position, a bounding rectangle and a  
method to move.

Why should this object be made polymorphic ?

Let say we have a window manager, which needs coordinates and bounding  
rectangle to layout components on a display area.

OK, but does, say, a dialog box, inherit a root type which have an  
abstract Coordinate function and Move procedure ? Wait a minute, the Move  
procedure may not be required to just compute the layout. For this  
process, only the Coordinate and Size functions are needed. Back to the  
question : does the dialog box inherit a type which have Coordinate and  
Size abstract functions ? Is that really the *root* of what a dialog box  
is ? Let return it, and say, the dialog box must provide Coordinate and  
Size functions. This is not the same any more. So why this must be  
polymorph : because many objects of different types must provide the same.  
So what about an access to function ? We would need a way to attach it to  
a context, that is an object. We could give it a parameter, say a dialog  
parameter, but then we would need as many different function type as there  
different object types which must provide Coordinate and Size functions.  
So we may use a tagged type, no to inherit, but instead, just to give the  
Size and Coordinate functions, a context, whose type may vary : we do not  
need to give multiple implementation of Size and Coordinate functions to a  
root object; this is the reverse, we have to provide to one functions,  
multiple context. Technically, this ends to be the same, but logically,  
this is these are both opposite.

So far : Dialog_Box needs to provide Size and Coordinate functions, and  
use a tagged type which can attach similar functions to contexts of  
different types.

Now, after the layout is computed, all these objects need to be moved, so  
these object must now provide a Move procedure. And here, the same kind of  
comments applies as above can apply.

But the ability to provide Size and Coordinate functions is distinct from  
the ability to provide a Move procedure. Why ? Because it is not needed  
for the same reason : the first are required to compute a layout, and the  
second are required if we want to apply that computed layout. We may want  
to compute layouts, without any application of these, as well as we may  
apply precomputed layouts which are not computed by the application at  
runtime.

So, shall we define two root types, one with Size and Coordinate, and  
another with Move ?

Ouch, not good, because this would require multiple inheritance.

So, let do it with simple inheritance : create a root type with Size and  
Coordinate, derive a new type with Move, and derive our object type from  
this latter. But why first Size + Coordinate and then Move ? Why not the  
opposite ? As these are separate requirement, there is no reason why one  
should be made more fundamental than the other.

So let create a root type with Size + Coordinate + Move. But about the  
cases where Move or Size + Coordinate are of strictly no use ?

May an idea would be kind of proxies : define an abstract type with Size +  
Coordinate, another type with Move. Dialog_Box and peers will not inherit  
 from that, but instead will provide a reference to objects of these types,  
as derived types. Let call the first type Positioned and the second one  
Movable. We may have a Dialog_Box which could return a reference to a  
Dialog_Box_Positioned and a Dialog_Box_Movable.

Now, a Dialog_Box is not anymore rooted (so primarily is) at a type which  
have either Move or Size + Coordinate, and is instead what it is : a  
Dialog_Box. From a semantic point of view, this seems more clear to me.  
There is just a dark point : you have to define three type to create a  
Dialog_Box, instead of creating only one (requires longer source) ; but  
still makes more sens, still have a clearer semantic with no arbitrary  
decision (with no justification) as expose above.

This may be a way to formalize a usage of polymorphism which could not be  
confused with classical inheritance. This polymorphism would just be a  
facade to an abstraction, which would require two levels only : an  
abstract type and as many concrete type as needed.

This may be nice to care : when we use tagged types, are we using  
inheritance tree or are we using some facades to some abstractions ?

Could there be some provision to make this two concept explicitly distinct  
in the language ? Something like a keyword which would say : one  
derivation level only for concrete implementation of this abstraction  
allowed ?

But now what if a type would like to reuse part of the implementation of  
Dialog_Box ? It can do it via invokation of standard implementation  
procedure with proper signature which would be visible for both.

Again, but what if we want an Error_Dialog_Box ? Doesn't sound natural to  
say it's particular kind of Dialog_Box ? I have no clear idea for that, as  
I would say yes, this may be legitimately a specialization of a Dialog_Box  
(so we will use classification), ad well an Error_Dialog_Box could simply  
be no more than just a Dialog_Box, with style kind attributes : ex.  
Warning_Style, Error_Style, Information_Style.

This latter is less obvious to me. For all so far, it seems clear to me  
composition offers a clearer semantic, … I am not so sure for the latter.

At least worth to note polymorphism does not implies inheritance hierarchy  
(and thus classification). But how to explicitly render this in source ?  
(I mean render, … something which clearly show the reader the intended  
usage of the polymorphism, and as usual, comments may not be enough here).


-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sun, 31 Oct 2010 06:02:20 +0100, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)  
<yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> a écrit:
> May an idea would be kind of proxies : define an abstract type with Size  
> + Coordinate, another type with Move. Dialog_Box and peers will not  
> inherit  from that, but instead will provide a reference to objects of  
> these types, as derived types. Let call the first type Positioned and  
> the second one Movable. We may have a Dialog_Box which could return a  
> reference to a Dialog_Box_Positioned and a Dialog_Box_Movable.
I am silly : I was just talking about interfaces (reinvented the wheel, I  
only attempted to use interface for “synchronized interface” so far, so  
did not realized immediately).

So what about an Ada profile where we would derive from interface only ?  
Tagged type as implementation of interfaces only, and disallow derivation  
 from tagged.

Could be a good Ada profile ?

Do someone see a flaw to be reported here ?

-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 22:57:15 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 10/30/10 9:26 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:02:17 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>>
>>> So standards production costs money.  Who is going to pay?
>>
>> Who should pay for laws? Who does not mathematical theorems?
>>
>>> If the answer is tax payers, then who is going to decide
>>> which standard deserves what amount of tax payers' money?
>>
>> Which law does deserve money? There are things, which cannot and may not be
>> sold.
>>
>> There was enough money for the laws about curved cucumbers and bent
>> bananas.
> 
> And?

Maybe there is still some money left for more useful things, like vital
software standards? BTW, publicly funded standards might become more
exposed to critique and control. Note that this issue will touch everyone.
New standards are coming, e.g. for the electrical devices in everyone's
home.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[J-P. Rosen]

Le 31/10/2010 06:02, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) a écrit :
[...]
> So, shall we define two root types, one with Size and Coordinate, and
> another with Move ?
> 
In my view, it is very important to make the distinction between
(class-wide) subprograms and methods.

A method is bound to a specific type. You don't draw a square the same
way that you draw a circle, each object has its own /method/ of
implementing the abstract notion. OTOH, the algorithm for moving a
square is the same as for moving a circle: it is not a method, but a
subprogram that operates on all graphical objects => perfectly
implemented in Ada with a procedure operating on a class-wide type.

Note that a class-wide subprogram is unique, cannot be redefined, and
you are guaranteed that no descendant of graphical objects can change it
to behave differently.

FWIW, here are my criteria for using inheritance:
1) you have several types, that are too different to be modelled as
variations of a single type (use discriminated types otherwise);
2) however, these types have some common logical properties, with
different implementations
3) you have to maintain an heterogenous container of these various types
4) you want to call the common operations on all objects in the container

Yes, graphical objects meet these criteria. You maintain a list of
objects on the screen, and you want to Paint them all by iterating over
the list.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Adalog a déménagé / Adalog has moved:
2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX
Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:38:02 +0100, J-P. Rosen wrote:

> FWIW, here are my criteria for using inheritance:
> 1) you have several types, that are too different to be modelled as
> variations of a single type (use discriminated types otherwise);
> 2) however, these types have some common logical properties, with
> different implementations
> 3) you have to maintain an heterogenous container of these various types
> 4) you want to call the common operations on all objects in the container

5) you want to postpone some design decision/implementation to a later
point. So you describe/implement what you know for certain right now, in
the form of an abstract type, and let a derived type to define the rest
when more information becomes available.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 10/31/10 8:48 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 22:57:15 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>
>> On 10/30/10 9:26 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:02:17 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>>>
>>>> So standards production costs money.  Who is going to pay?
>>>
>>> Who should pay for laws? Who does not mathematical theorems?
>>>
>>>> If the answer is tax payers, then who is going to decide
>>>> which standard deserves what amount of tax payers' money?
>>>
>>> Which law does deserve money? There are things, which cannot and may not be
>>> sold.
>>>
>>> There was enough money for the laws about curved cucumbers and bent
>>> bananas.
>>
>> And?
>
> Maybe there is still some money left for more useful things, like vital
> software standards?

So when selecting a subject for standardization, one criterion
is its usefulness (undefined term, so far), specifically its being
vital (to be defined).

If a subject vital (whatever this means) then it is payed for
with public money.

Who determines what is vital?  And who pays them for determining
what is vital, and why it is vital?

Lastly, who decides that the standard is so vital that everyone
needs copies of the standard for free, plus that its production
should be payed for by such-and-such?


>  BTW, publicly funded standards might become more
> exposed to critique and control. Note that this issue will touch everyone.
> New standards are coming, e.g. for the electrical devices in everyone's
> home.

Another criterion for selecting a subject for standardization,
then, is that the thing is in everyone's home.

Like light bulbs or cucumbers are in everyone's homes, maybe?
Who, then, will drive standardization of light bulbs, and who
does the financing?

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:59:57 +0100, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 10/31/10 8:48 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 22:57:15 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/30/10 9:26 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:02:17 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So standards production costs money.  Who is going to pay?
>>>>
>>>> Who should pay for laws? Who does not mathematical theorems?
>>>>
>>>>> If the answer is tax payers, then who is going to decide
>>>>> which standard deserves what amount of tax payers' money?
>>>>
>>>> Which law does deserve money? There are things, which cannot and may not be
>>>> sold.
>>>>
>>>> There was enough money for the laws about curved cucumbers and bent
>>>> bananas.
>>>
>>> And?
>>
>> Maybe there is still some money left for more useful things, like vital
>> software standards?
> 
> So when selecting a subject for standardization, one criterion
> is its usefulness (undefined term, so far), specifically its being
> vital (to be defined).
> 
> If a subject vital (whatever this means) then it is payed for
> with public money.

Yes, this is why there is state, which taxes us.

> Who determines what is vital?  And who pays them for determining
> what is vital, and why it is vital?

Who determined the vitality of keeping cucumbers straight? You and I paid
for that.

I hope you agree with me that the idea of standards selected in market
competition is just stupid.

> Who, then, will drive standardization of light bulbs, and who
> does the financing?

BTW, the EU is in such stuff anyway, e.g.

   http://www.openmeter.com

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[J-P. Rosen]

Le 31/10/2010 11:54, Dmitry A. Kazakov a �crit :
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:38:02 +0100, J-P. Rosen wrote:
> 
>> FWIW, here are my criteria for using inheritance:
>[...]
> 5) you want to postpone some design decision/implementation to a later
> point. So you describe/implement what you know for certain right now, in
> the form of an abstract type, and let a derived type to define the rest
> when more information becomes available.
> 
Sorry, I don't agree with you on this. I think the structure of the
design should only reflect the logical structure, not the history of the
project.

If at some point you don't know enough, express what you know. When
things become clearer, rework what you have done. "I have written this,
I don't want to change/replace/destroy it now" is the root of many evils...
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Adalog a d�m�nag� / Adalog has moved:
2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX
Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Niklas Holsti]

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:38:02 +0100, J-P. Rosen wrote:
> 
>> FWIW, here are my criteria for using inheritance:
>> 1) you have several types, that are too different to be modelled as
>> variations of a single type (use discriminated types otherwise);
>> 2) however, these types have some common logical properties, with
>> different implementations
>> 3) you have to maintain an heterogenous container of these various types
>> 4) you want to call the common operations on all objects in the container
> 
> 5) you want to postpone some design decision/implementation to a later
> point. So you describe/implement what you know for certain right now, in
> the form of an abstract type, and let a derived type to define the rest
> when more information becomes available.

I have a similar criterion with a different interpretation of "later 
point", assuming that Dmitry's "later" means "later in time". My 
criterion is:

5') you want to declare the existence and common properties of these 
types relatively early in the package dependency graph, with the minimal 
set of dependencies, but postpone implementations to a deeper point (ie. 
a "later point") in the dependency graph.

In my designs this aspect of inheritance and extension has greatly 
helped to decouple packages. However, I believe that Jean-Paul's four 
criteria 1-4 have also been satisfied, so 5' is perhaps rather an effect 
or benefit of using extension and inheritance than an independent criterion.

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
       .      @       .

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:54:22 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
> 5) you want to postpone some design decision/implementation to a later
> point. So you describe/implement what you know for certain right now, in
> the form of an abstract type, and let a derived type to define the rest
> when more information becomes available.
Makes me feel like the implementation language is used for modeling (this  
topic again).

I use to attempt that in the past (as I had a feeling for a need), with  
Pascal, but never felt satisfied. The implementation language is mostly  
not well suited for that, because it is intended to express things which  
works (even what is named “abstraction” in an implementation language,  
requires concrete interfaces). You have, not only to complete and fill the  
holes, but also have to change what was the prior abstraction (concrete  
interface again). Then, the prior abstraction is not readable anymore and  
is no more there to guide your steps as the concrete implementation goes.  
Finally, the abstraction is not recognizable at all, the completion of the  
implementation tries to follow something which is vanishing as it try to  
reach it (the abstraction) and goes erratic (more or less, will not say  
this produce a pure disaster). So I gave up with this, and tried another  
way : try to see the whole before starting any implementation (not the end  
of the story, as this is not more a piece of cake).

To be less formal and to talk about feeling, I also did not enjoyed  
incomplete implementations, which sooner or later had the taste of a  
pending failure (especially as time passed), this was driving me  
disappointed.

Now I make a wish : never start an implementation without a good model :)  
(a model which will stay there as the implementation goes). The place to  
write down one's first ideas is really the modal (I believe), not the  
source.

So I may add this one among the other things inheritance/derivation is not  
to be confused with : modeling (unless running Simula or SmallTalk, from  
which languages like Pascal and Ada are rather far away).


-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 13:54:33 +0100, J-P. Rosen wrote:

> Le 31/10/2010 11:54, Dmitry A. Kazakov a �crit :
>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:38:02 +0100, J-P. Rosen wrote:
>> 
>>> FWIW, here are my criteria for using inheritance:
>>[...]
>> 5) you want to postpone some design decision/implementation to a later
>> point. So you describe/implement what you know for certain right now, in
>> the form of an abstract type, and let a derived type to define the rest
>> when more information becomes available.
>> 
> Sorry, I don't agree with you on this. I think the structure of the
> design should only reflect the logical structure, not the history of the
> project.

Ideally, but unlikely to happen in projects of real size in real life.

> If at some point you don't know enough, express what you know. When
> things become clearer, rework what you have done.

You may have client code which should be rewritten as well. Then the things
(customer requirements) may change several times, so reworking the code in
order to achieve monolithic design might be a bad idea. So it is also:

6) allows you not to overspecify interfaces.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Jeffrey Carter]

On 10/31/2010 03:54 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>
> 5) you want to postpone some design decision/implementation to a later
> point. So you describe/implement what you know for certain right now, in
> the form of an abstract type, and let a derived type to define the rest
> when more information becomes available.

Here, I think, is a real reason people like programming by extension: You can 
start coding before thinking, and still claim you're engineering S/W because 
it's "object oriented".

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Why, the Mayflower was full of Fireflies, and a few
horseflies, too. The Fireflies were on the upper deck,
and the horseflies were on the Fireflies."
Duck Soup
95

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Jeffrey Carter]

On 10/31/2010 03:54 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>
> 5) you want to postpone some design decision/implementation to a later
> point. So you describe/implement what you know for certain right now, in
> the form of an abstract type, and let a derived type to define the rest
> when more information becomes available.

Deferring implementation decisions is the job of information hiding, implemented 
in Ada by packages, not the type system.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Why, the Mayflower was full of Fireflies, and a few
horseflies, too. The Fireflies were on the upper deck,
and the horseflies were on the Fireflies."
Duck Soup
95

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Jeffrey Carter]

On 10/31/2010 03:38 AM, J-P. Rosen wrote:
>
> FWIW, here are my criteria for using inheritance:
> 1) you have several types, that are too different to be modelled as
> variations of a single type (use discriminated types otherwise);
> 2) however, these types have some common logical properties, with
> different implementations
> 3) you have to maintain an heterogenous container of these various types
> 4) you want to call the common operations on all objects in the container

FWIW, here is my criterion for using inheritance:

1. You need finalization.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Why, the Mayflower was full of Fireflies, and a few
horseflies, too. The Fireflies were on the upper deck,
and the horseflies were on the Fireflies."
Duck Soup
95

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:24:30 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
>> [long talk about GPL and market]
> It only shows the evident: absence of market produces monopolies, which
> necessarily start abusing customers.
A quote to support what was noticed here. Sit well on your chair, you  
gonna laugh :

The context : three advocators defending each one a license during a  
public debate. The winner was someone named Matt Asay, advocating for the  
GPL. Guess was he said to advocate the GPL and win (the reporter even  
underline what Asay said could be interpreted as advocating against the  
GPL). The reporter wrote :

> Asay made what could be interpreted as a negative comment about
> the GPL - that it is a capitalist's dream as one could use it to
> benefit users (who could use and modify) and bludgeon competitors
> (who could not modify the code unless they were prepared to share
> it as well).

Here we are, an advocator of the GPL, publicly defending the GPL with the  
fact this license is a capitalist's dream… and he even clearly explained  
why it is.

Check it yourself :
http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/27436-which-licence-is-best-epl-gpl-or-bsd
and
http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/27436-which-licence-is-best-epl-gpl-or-bsd?start=1

-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:04:56 -0700, Jeffrey Carter wrote:

> On 10/31/2010 03:54 AM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>
>> 5) you want to postpone some design decision/implementation to a later
>> point. So you describe/implement what you know for certain right now, in
>> the form of an abstract type, and let a derived type to define the rest
>> when more information becomes available.
> 
> Deferring implementation decisions is the job of information hiding, implemented 
> in Ada by packages, not the type system.

Deferring and hiding are two different aspects of design.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Niklas Holsti]

Correcting a mistake of mine:

Niklas Holsti wrote:
 > ... However, I believe that Jean-Paul's four criteria 1-4 ...

I meant to write Jean-Pierre (for J-P. Rosen). Slip of the mind, 
apologies to J-P.

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
       .      @       .

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[J-P. Rosen]

Le 31/10/2010 22:02, Niklas Holsti a �crit :
> Correcting a mistake of mine:
> 
> Niklas Holsti wrote:
>> ... However, I believe that Jean-Paul's four criteria 1-4 ...
> 
> I meant to write Jean-Pierre (for J-P. Rosen). Slip of the mind,
> apologies to J-P.
> 
No offense - I'm used to it, many people make that confusion since
Jean-Paul II was elected Pope ;-)

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Adalog a d�m�nag� / Adalog has moved:
2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX
Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Colin Paul Gloster]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 8412 bytes --]

Warning: still very much unrelated to Ada...


Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@Dmitry-Kazakov.De> sent on October 27th, 2010:

|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:59:29 +0000, Colin Paul Gloster wrote:                |
|                                                                              |
|> Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@Dmitry-Kazakov.De> sent on October 26th, 2010:   |
|>|---------------------------------------------------------------------------||
|>|"2. Considering the parameters you mention, excessively high cost of living||
|>|presumes that someone else pays for Europeans."                            ||
|>|---------------------------------------------------------------------------||
|>                                                                             |
|> No, it is a high cost of living. If it is a proxy for someone else          |
|> paying for Europeans, then I am not aware of it but then neither am I       |
|> an economist.                                                               |
|                                                                              |
|But if Europeans pay for themselves where is an excess? I consider it         |
|normal to spend the earned."                                                  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Software produced in Europe would cost more than software produced in
New Zealand, in order to subsidize the higher cost of living of
someone in Europe without making any extra profit for the rival in
Europe. As such, the high cost of living in Europe is excessive and
does impact other costs and the European economy.

|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"> Shall the Federal so-called Republic of Germany stop subsidizing the       |
|> so-called Republic of Ireland during this century?                          |
|                                                                              |
|Do you mean EU's subsidizing programs? [..]                                   |
|[..]"                                                                         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Probably. I was referring to how Éire was being paid with taxes from
the European Union worth 4.06 times what Éire was paying to the
European Union in taxes at the same time, in the 1990's. Sometime, I
suspect more recently but I am not wasting time to check, there was a
justified complaint by a politican employed by Germany complaining
about much the same thing (claiming something like it was time for
Éire to stop being greedy and to allow others to benefit), but the
ratio of money coming in to money going out may have been different.

(By the way, not all subsequent refusals by the European Union to
Ireland were justified. Just because the rich in Ireland get richer
does not mean that the poor in Ireland do not get poorer.)

|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|">|---------------------------------------------------------------------------||
|>|"Laziness presumes in this context that the average productivity of an     | |
|>|European worker "                                                          | |
|>|---------------------------------------------------------------------------| |
|>                                                                              |
|> I do not know whether or not an average European worker is lazy. I do        |
|> not deem laziness to be anti-correlated with productivity.                   |
|                                                                               |
|That depends on the measure. In working hours per week? Wouldn't you prefer    |
|a lazy Ada programmer, who completes the project before the schedule and       |
|spends the rest of the time on the beach, to a C programmer enjoying           |
|16-hours-per-day marathons of patching bug-ridden mess he wrote?"              |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------||

I would prefer a dedicated Ada programmer who is so interested in the
topic that he or she gets much more done than the lazy Ada programmer,
whose interest instead seems to be going to the beach.

As the dedicated Ada programmer would be so good, I can accept the
dedicated Ada programmer taking a few hours or days off to rest better
or to take care of chores or to work on a better hobby than
contracting cancer.


|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|">|---------------------------------------------------------------------------||
|>|"is lower than one of a Chinese worker. This is also wrong,                | |
|>|very wrong."                                                               | |
|>|---------------------------------------------------------------------------| |
|>                                                                              |
|> I do not know much about Chinese workers. I imagine that average             |
|> Chinese workers are forced to work for much longer than average              |
|> European workers, whether or not they are lazy.                              |
|                                                                               |
|They are working much harder, but also much less productive. But who is        |
|lazy here?"                                                                    |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Okay.

|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"Another point. Lazy is someone who deliberately decides not to work. [..]    |
|[..]                                                                          |
|[..] Where do you know if they wanted                                         |
|to work more than Europeans under same conditions?"                           |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Fair enough. Let me phrase it differently. In Europe, there seems to
be more significant legal protection to protect the option of enacting
one's laziness than in China.

|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|" Now,                                                                        |
|people in China are *forced* to work, otherwise they hunger."                 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

This is true everywhere.

|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|" [ In USSR                                                                   |
|there was a legal punishment for those who refused to take a job. Maybe       |
|something like this exists in China too. ]"                                   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Apparently in Denmark the dole could be withheld if someone refused to
take a job suggested by people who work for the dole.

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"> However, in Europe one has legal protection to enforce laziness if a     |
|> lazy person in Europe opts to.                                            |
|                                                                            |
|I disagree. The legal protection of workers is here in order compensate the |
|power an employer has over the employees. This in the end makes workers     |
|more productive, from which employers benefit even more than the employees."|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

In Europe it is illegal to force someone to work without a break. In
the Republic of Ireland, it is unconstitutional to force a mother to
work under conditions which interfere with her duties at home. I once
offered to work in France for gratis, but the would-have-been employer
could not legally hire someone without paying wages. Basically the
same thing also happened to me in Ireland.

Regards,
Colin Paul Gloster

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 18:02:11 +0000, Colin Paul Gloster wrote:

> Warning: still very much unrelated to Ada...
> 
> Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@Dmitry-Kazakov.De> sent on October 27th, 2010:
> 
>|But if Europeans pay for themselves where is an excess? I consider it         |
>|normal to spend the earned."                                                  |
> 
> Software produced in Europe would cost more than software produced in
> New Zealand, in order to subsidize the higher cost of living of
> someone in Europe without making any extra profit for the rival in
> Europe. As such, the high cost of living in Europe is excessive and
> does impact other costs and the European economy.

That is irrelevant so long as EU does not borrow money from New Zealand.
BTW, NZ is an unfortunate example, to my knowledge the life style there is
even more relaxed than across EU.

>|Do you mean EU's subsidizing programs? [..]                                   |
> 
> Probably. I was referring to how �ire was being paid with taxes from
> the European Union worth 4.06 times what �ire was paying to the
> European Union in taxes at the same time, in the 1990's.

It was a good investment, at least compared to other EU programs.

> (By the way, not all subsequent refusals by the European Union to
> Ireland were justified. Just because the rich in Ireland get richer
> does not mean that the poor in Ireland do not get poorer.)

This is a process going on all around the West. The reason for that IMO is
degradation of the Left into the Leftist. But this is a long story.
 
> I would prefer a dedicated Ada programmer who is so interested in the
> topic that he or she gets much more done than the lazy Ada programmer,
> whose interest instead seems to be going to the beach.

No programmer can work *productively* for more than 4 hours per day.

>|" Now,                                                                        |
>|people in China are *forced* to work, otherwise they hunger."                 |
> 
> This is true everywhere.

Not in EU with its welfare careers in 3rd generation.

>|" [ In USSR                                                                   |
>|there was a legal punishment for those who refused to take a job. Maybe       |
>|something like this exists in China too. ]"                                   |
> 
> Apparently in Denmark the dole could be withheld if someone refused to
> take a job suggested by people who work for the dole.

In USSR it was a criminal offence. The most notorious case was Joseph
Brodsky, future Nobel Prize winner, convicted for "social parasitism" to
forced labor in banishment.

>|"> However, in Europe one has legal protection to enforce laziness if a     |
>|> lazy person in Europe opts to.                                            |
>|                                                                            |
>|I disagree. The legal protection of workers is here in order compensate the |
>|power an employer has over the employees. This in the end makes workers     |
>|more productive, from which employers benefit even more than the employees."|
> 
> In Europe it is illegal to force someone to work without a break.

Is it bad? Why shouldn't Ada programmers make breaks?

> In the Republic of Ireland, it is unconstitutional to force a mother to
> work under conditions which interfere with her duties at home.

Considering the birth rate we have in EU ... maybe this is not enough?

> I once
> offered to work in France for gratis, but the would-have-been employer
> could not legally hire someone without paying wages.

Why should anybody work for gratis as an *employee*? Ground a one-man firm
and let them contract your firm. Restrictions put on employee - employer
relationship do not apply to firm to firm contracts.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Wed, 03 Nov 2010 21:52:43 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
>> I would prefer a dedicated Ada programmer who is so interested in the
>> topic that he or she gets much more done than the lazy Ada programmer,
>> whose interest instead seems to be going to the beach.
>
> No programmer can work *productively* for more than 4 hours per day.
Depends on the work, how it is done. If what is considered work is only
the time spend to write, then, OK. if time to read, to study, to talk
about the topic is also work, then I think any one can go easily beyond
four hours. Doing less job in more time seems a good option too. Kicking
people with the hope they will do more in less time (and pay them less by
the way), shown for long what the result is : bad job, furious clients
(but happy investors who earn a lot selling bad products, … more products).

-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour les chiens.

Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Le Wed, 03 Nov 2010 19:02:11 +0100, Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@acm.org> a écrit:
> In Europe it is illegal to force someone to work without a break.
Don't “worry” (if really you should be worried of that) : in Europe, breaks
are not paid at all for the poorest workers (it is paid only for the richest)


-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour les chiens.