Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"David Botton" <david@botton.com> wrote in message 
news:17ad25fe-e04f-4d79-a622-0b2455c150a0@googlegroups.com...
>> RRS started low-cost compilers in 1984, long before GNAT existed. But
>> whatever.

>And then the entire small compiler market for Ada was tiny, and microscopic 
>compared
>to markets for Turbo Pascal or Turbo C++, in fact Turbo Prolog (I liked 
>that) was
>probably larger a 1000 fold.

You grossly underestimate the power of Ada back in its glory days. For your 
statement to be true, Turbo Prolog would have had to sell well beyond 
5,000,000 copies. That seems unlikely. I might believe it for Turbo Pascal, 
but that's it.

>Many companies did excellent in the low-cost compiler market in those days. 
>None
>of those companies exists per se now. (Borland for example, whose catalog 
>is still
>dragged along for old customers even with some enhancements)

True enough. But I don't know why we're talking about this, because almost 
everyone here realizes that there is no profit in a low-cost compiler (for 
any language). If Microsoft feels it necessary to give awy their compilers 
(and they do), that's probably true for everyone else too.

The problem, of course, is that software development systems (which are far 
more than a compiler, of course) can't be built by volunteers. Stuff like 
program correctness is just too hard to be built by few people in their 
spare time.

But if there is no market for them, we'll continue to get more of the same. 
Indeed, it's pretty clear that the trend; a major "feature" of the cloud is 
that software can be replaced quickly, so there is much less incentive to 
get it right in the first place. Which means of course that it never will be 
right (and that contributes a lot to the ease of criminals breaking into 
systems).

>> But if there is no market, then there is no point in making a compiler at
>> all, because giving it away will not pay the bills.
>
>Correct. That has been the case now for a long time.
>
>Like most things these days you need alternative models for monetizing your 
>creative
>ideas since the old ones are used up, that is part of progress.

Since the ideas are ways to make software development better, there is 
nothing else to monitize. I'm not remotely interested in developing software 
for people that aren't already computer experts -- it's hard enough to 
please people that understand you and with which you have something in 
common.

>> Outreach in the form of demos, GPL versions, etc is cool, but not if it
>> cannablizes your main revenue stream (whatever that is).
>
>In a world of libre software if giving it away would cannibalizes your 
>business
>then you have no real business model,

You're probably right. As far as I can tell, there is no remaining business 
model for anything that I am competent at or care about.

Anything that one could do will be copied or even stolen before it could be 
brought to market.

Indeed, I don't understand why you think Gnoga will be good for Ada beyond 
an improvement for the existing believers. After all, if the model is so 
good, someone will copy it for C++ or Java, and they'll get the trade press 
for it, and [almost] everyone will think that the people who copied it 
invented it. (Consider the STL, for example, which started in Ada.) There 
isn't much that can be done in Ada that can't be done in those other 
languages (not quite as well, of course, but no one will care about that). 
Of course, if the model doesn't pan out, then it'll be just another failed 
technology.

I haven't wanted to discourage you in any way from developing Gnoga, which 
is mainly why I haven't brought this up sooner. But from the moment I read 
about it, I thought that it doesn't have much chance to be a game-changer, 
because anything one guy can do in a man-year can be copied by another guy 
in half that time (the tough work is done, after all). Hope I'm wrong.

>> And the people who traditionally have built software are unemployed or
>> underemployed.
>
>Those that didn't continue expanding their skill sets usually. There are 
>only so many
>jobs for people that no the ins and the outs of Wangs :) (But I do know 
>someone
>making a living there too... I wonder what happens when that job is gone 
>for him)

Sadly, that's how I've treated Ada for the last 10+ years. Hope that it 
lasts until I reach retirement.

There is very little in what passes for computing these days that I can 
stand to look at. Most of what would be required to "expand ones skill set" 
would require checking my brain at the door and making unmaintainable 
mash-ups of stuff that will stop working in a week (not the 20 years I want 
to run a program).

I suppose that makes me a dinosaur, because I still care about doing things 
right.

...
>> (Of course, most jobs will be automated in the coming years,
>> so that is going to be a growing problem for society to deal with.)
>
>And those that expand the skill sets in to the new areas that come with it 
>will succeed.

Well, if you mean learning to be a Wal-Mart greeter, perhaps you're right. 
Otherwise, I don't see it, because the vast majority of these machines will 
be self-repairing and eventually even self-constructing. There's little room 
for humans in that equation (and that's discounting the Terminator-style 
outcomes). I'm actually surprised that it hasn't happened already, but as 
with many things, the pace of progress is slower.

...
>There is a beautiful world out there. Most of it is far away from 
>government related projects though :)

Yup. However, it only beautiful when people have left their grubby hands off 
of it. And unfortunately, there is no market for hermits. :-)

>In summary of all that hot air:
>
>Expanded_skill_sets + humility + passion + win_win = Success.

As far as I can tell, I've never possessed any of these things except for 
passion
(I'd put the equation at:
     Ignorance + ego + previous experience with small business + passion + 
luck = Success)
...and the passion and luck were squeezed out years ago by Open Source and 
the takeover of the computer business by massive corps -- essentially 
catching the real innovators in a vice.

Not that I expect anyone to feel sorry for me. There are no real second 
chances, and a lot of people never even get a first chance.

                           Randy.