From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9b30240b5a381bbf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-22 19:03:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Robert C. Leif" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Ada 95 for an ARM-based bare board? Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:01:43 -0700 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1030068182 22528 137.194.161.2 (23 Aug 2002 02:03:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:03:02 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: X-Envelope-From: rleif@rleif.com X-Envelope-To: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <3D651FAF.E80AFD4E@adaworks.com> Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:28329 Date: 2002-08-22T19:01:43-07:00 From: Bob Leif To: Richard Riehle et al. Firstly, I do not have any information to argue with you about "Microsoft seized an opportunity by deceiving a friend, Tim Patterson, and through a series of evil deeds that no one in the technological part of our industry admires." I should point out that SUN deceived virtually the entire software industry into believing that Java is a new, modern, safe technology. This act will hurt many individuals as opposed to one. Frankly, we could loose many American military because of this. To add to the problem, I suspect most of the readers of Comp.Lang.Ada have, as I do, a great respect for the work of Dewar et al. on GNAT and would recommend it for mission critical uses including weapons. Wearing my microbiologist-biomedical engineer hat, I have heard intelligent talks about the inadvisability of publishing certain material. I hope that the wrong people are not benefiting from availability of Ada technology including GNAT. Frankly, I do not have a solution to this problem. Parenthetically, if Martin Carlisle's work on "Weaving Ada95 into the .NET Environment works, then the ARM processor should run under Windows CE and probably eventually on Windows XP embedded. These operating systems, hopefully, could be a very large Ada market. Each outside compiler vendor on the Microsoft 3rd party page has a paragraph to describe their product. I suspect that Microsoft people might be amused if someone posted a truthful comparison of Ada versus Java. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Embedded/ce.NET/evaluation/hardware/pro videdbsp.asp -----Original Message----- From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org [mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org] On Behalf Of Richard Riehle Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 10:30 AM To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Subject: Re: Ada 95 for an ARM-based bare board? tmoran@acm.org wrote: > > The list of dead Silicon Valley companies who spread themselves too > > thin by failing to concentrate on their core business and their paying > > customers is long and depressing. > OTOH, Intel went off their core semiconductor RAM business to build > a chip for somebody's calculator, and then overengineered that. Apple > forgot its core business was hobbyists, and Microsoft forgot its core > business was BASIC. Sticking with your core business leaves you with > nothing more than your core business. Thanks Tom. Of course it is important to know when your core business is no longer relevant. It is also important to take well-reasoned risks. I suppose I did oversimplify. However, when a company has limited resources and its core business is still emerging, or trying to re-emerge (as with Ada), there is some virtue in not straying too far from the core business. As to your examples, Intel did take risks, but those risks did not detract from its core business. Apple is a different story, as you know. They had an opportunity to win the marketplace and threw it away through their arrogance. Microsoft seized an opportunity by deceiving a friend, Tim Patterson, and through a series of evil deeds that no one in the technological part of our industry admires. Their core business was, and still is, marketing, not software innovation. Richard Riehle