Re: Way OT:Adam Smith and Software Markets

Re: Way OT:Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Alexandre E. Kopilovitch]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:50:49 +0100 Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:

>Does our civilization really need so many programmers?
Perhaps yes: nearly all people should be prepared for writing scripts for
their Body Area Networks, Social Frame Network Participation Adapters etc. -:)

>>and very few of the financial resources used to do it would have been
>>otherwise available for the things you list (which pretty much require
>>Government, not private sector, funding).
>
>True. It is the lack-of-a-threat problem. There would be no landing on
>the moon without the Cold War. Only a real threat gives birth to real
>solutions.
To be more precise, only a real threat to a state leads to solutions seriously
funded by the state. Otherwise, there are always enough real threats.
  In other words, only massively concentrated thread is responded by massively
concentrated funding; distributed threat takes distributed funding.

>nobody wants to live in interesting times. (:-))
Well, this time is quite interesting, though. Real global networks with hundreds
of million participants, huge leap in computational power, intellectual property
battles, China... to name a few.

Re: Way OT:Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Thu,  6 Mar 2003 18:19:11 +0300 (MSK), "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch"
<aek@vib.usr.pu.ru> wrote:

>On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:50:49 +0100 Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
>wrote:
>
>>Does our civilization really need so many programmers?
>Perhaps yes: nearly all people should be prepared for writing scripts for
>their Body Area Networks, Social Frame Network Participation Adapters etc. -:)

... to be able to write is not quite same as to be a writer. Everybody
be programmer, brrr, that would be a new Utopia (there everybody was
supposed to be a philosopher).

>>nobody wants to live in interesting times. (:-))
>Well, this time is quite interesting, though. Real global networks with hundreds
>of million participants, huge leap in computational power, intellectual property
>battles, China... to name a few.

BTW, China, I believe it is a Chinese saying: to wish somebody to live
in interesting times. Fortunately, our time is not enough
"interesting"! (:-)) However, it is getting closer to that. What about
getting 25 years jail in a combat (in one of that intellectual
property battles)?

---
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Way OT:Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Richard Riehle]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote:

> BTW, China, I believe it is a Chinese saying: to wish somebody to live
> in interesting times.

I believe this quotation can be attributed to Voltaire.

Richard Riehle

Re: Way OT:Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Alexandre E. Kopilovitch]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:37:51 +0100
Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:

>BTW, China, I believe it is a Chinese saying: to wish somebody to live
>in interesting times.
I thought that Chinese saying was about "times of changes"... let's don't mix
classical sayings (Chinese or other) with Monty Python (I have nothing against
the latter, just do not mix -:)

> Fortunately, our time is not enough "interesting"! (:-))
It depends on where you live... and consequently, what you can watch and feel.

> However, it is getting closer to that. What about
>getting 25 years jail in a combat (in one of that intellectual property battles)?
Well, it is hard to frighten former Soviet people (for example) with such
usual things -;)  And be sure, those so-called "developed" nations didn't
(and will not) forget entirely their own history.

Re: Way OT:Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

Alexandre E. Kopilovitch wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:37:51 +0100
> Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> 
>>BTW, China, I believe it is a Chinese saying: to wish somebody to live
>>in interesting times.
> I thought that Chinese saying was about "times of changes"... let's don't
> mix classical sayings (Chinese or other) with Monty Python (I have nothing
> against the latter, just do not mix -:)

I should admit that my knowledge of Chinese sayings heavily relies on Terry 
Pratchett's writings (:-)).

>> Fortunately, our time is not enough "interesting"! (:-))
> It depends on where you live... and consequently, what you can watch and
> feel.
> 
>> However, it is getting closer to that. What about
>>getting 25 years jail in a combat (in one of that intellectual property
>>battles)?
> Well, it is hard to frighten former Soviet people (for example) with such
> usual things -;)

Come on, even in the former SU nobody would be jailed for writting software. 
Honestly, the dissidents worked against the regime, they were a threat. But 
even so, one could get no more than 5-7 years in camps for that. 25 years 
for exercising the right of free speech, that's closer to a young and 
passionate dictature than to a teethless aged regime.

> And be sure, those so-called "developed" nations didn't
> (and will not) forget entirely their own history.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Container libraries

[Marin David Condic]

Certainly free markets and lots of choices are the way to go. The better
products end up floating to the top and people have specialized choices for
specialized needs. That said, I'd still think there would be a big advantage
to having some basic containers as a conventional part of Ada - especially
for students. It makes it much easier to point them at an answer and if it
is just there with the compiler, they just use it and presume it *is* part
of the language.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

Jean-Pierre Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr> wrote in message
news:ul3n3b.0at.ln@skymaster...
> >
> Right. Similarly, in the former USSR, people did not have to worry about
which
> brand of butter to buy - if they had one, they were happy. We do have that
problem
> in our supermarkets. Should we complain ?
>

Re: Container libraries

[tmoran]

> Certainly free markets and lots of choices are the way to go. The better
> products end up floating to the top and people have specialized choices for
> specialized needs. That said, I'd still think there would be a big advantage
> to having some basic containers as a conventional part of Ada - especially
> for students. It makes it much easier to point them at an answer and if it
> is just there with the compiler, they just use it and presume it *is* part
> of the language.
  Unfortunately, as this points out in yet another way, the classic Adam
Smith free market works very poorly for software.  The cost of a piece of
software to a user is mostly not $, but information costs of trying to
find out what's available, how well it does what the user wants, and what
might it do that the user doesn't want.  Something like a brand name or
Official Ada Annex validation is really needed to cheaply and reliably
tell the user "this is a good thing".  How to get the creator of container
package A to agree that container package B should be the "standard", I
don't know.

Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Frank J. Lhota]

>   Unfortunately, as this points out in yet another way, the classic Adam
> Smith free market works very poorly for software.

There is a simple experiment that can show that the market for software, for
the most part, works fairly well. Do you have an old PC in your attic? You
know, an original IBM PC or compatible (floppy drive or cassette based
storage), or an XP running DOS 2.x with a 20 Megabyte hard drive? (Note: I
said Meg, not Gig!) If so, some weekend when you have the time, take it down
from the attic and set it up again. Recall the days before USB when all
hardware had to be installed in a motherboard slot, where it was up to you
to resolve IRQ conflicts by fiddling with DIP switches and jumpers, and it
was up to you to edit CONFIG.SYS to install a driver. Try out you old word
processor, the one that only worked with fixed pitch fonts, and could only
render a smooth right edge by periodically inserting extra blanks into your
text. And don't forget your first spreadsheet program, the one that is also
unaware of alternate fonts, not to mention graphics, embedded objects, or
connectivity to just about any other application. Remember when user
interface standards were no-existent, sort of like Moore's famous quote,
"Standards are wonderful, everyone should have one"?

Oddly enough, a lot of people who go through this exercise have found it
pleasing and nostalgic. They fondly remember the various clever tricks they
devised to get around the software limitations of that era. But let's face
it, the only reason anyone has any fun with this stuff is the fact that
these hassles are in the past. After this little experiment, all but the
most diehard archivist would return the old PC to the attic.

In my time, I have constantly seen market pressure fuel many hardware and
software improvements. The companies that failed to make improvements in
their products have often suffered tremendous falls. (Remember WordStar, the
MicroPro word processor that once held over half the word processing
market?) I am not saying that we in the software industry could not do
better, and I wholehearted agree that software development as it is done
today needs much better quality assurance techniques. But one cannot deny
how far we have come. The proof of that is just one attic away.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Marin David Condic]

Just remember that "Quality" is something that is defined by the purchaser
and doesn't necessarily line up with the technologist's view of what makes
something "better". One might consider Microsoft Word to be an inferior,
buggy, bloated software product, but is that what the consumer sees? Maybe
they see "compatibility with the rest of the world" to be a big deal. Maby
they think "low price" is more important - or "Integration with other
Microsoft Products" is a key value. All other things being equal, they might
prefer one that was less bloated and more bug-free but all other things are
seldom equal, are they?

And yes, Word is superior in many ways to earlier word processors (Does
anybody *really* want to go back to using TECO? Well, maybe *somebody* does,
but they are far and few between.) and that's an example of where market
forces allowed a better product to supplant inferior products. There are
probably things emerging that would be "better" than Word and they may
eventually emerge on top too. Markets work - just not necessarily overnight
nor according to what the technologist may prefer.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

Frank J. Lhota <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:mUK8a.23783$8f7.21516@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> In my time, I have constantly seen market pressure fuel many hardware and
> software improvements. The companies that failed to make improvements in
> their products have often suffered tremendous falls. (Remember WordStar,
the
> MicroPro word processor that once held over half the word processing
> market?) I am not saying that we in the software industry could not do
> better, and I wholehearted agree that software development as it is done
> today needs much better quality assurance techniques. But one cannot deny
> how far we have come. The proof of that is just one attic away.
>
>

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Just remember that "Quality" is something that is defined by the purchaser
> and doesn't necessarily line up with the technologist's view of what makes
> something "better". One might consider Microsoft Word to be an inferior,
> buggy, bloated software product, but is that what the consumer sees? Maybe
> they see "compatibility with the rest of the world" to be a big deal. Maby
> they think "low price" is more important - or "Integration with other
> Microsoft Products" is a key value. All other things being equal, they might
> prefer one that was less bloated and more bug-free but all other things are
> seldom equal, are they?

Or they might not prefer it but be force into using it because allmost
everybody else uses it (or feels forced to...).

> And yes, Word is superior in many ways to earlier word processors (Does
> anybody *really* want to go back to using TECO? Well, maybe *somebody* does,
> but they are far and few between.) and that's an example of where market
> forces allowed a better product to supplant inferior products. There are
> probably things emerging that would be "better" than Word and they may
> eventually emerge on top too. 

Well I read an article once that showed that the efficiency of writing
had not improved since 1980s despite the changes in the word processors.
However, I cannot recall where I read it so this so this cannot be
submitted as evidence ;-)

However, try writing a paper with some 20 equations and figures and
tables and you'll soon see how frustrating Word is. Top it of with that
the paper has to be in Letter format (or A4 for those who use Letter)
and you'll go nuts. Word works for two page memos, but not much more IMHO.

I don't know about TECO (probably before my time), but I don't think
WP5.1 was much poorer than the Word of today. But give me LaTeX and I'll
be happy. ;-)

> Markets work - just not necessarily overnight nor according to what
> the technologist may prefer.

The market works poorly in the desktop business as there is a monopoly
situation. The competition seem to be eaten by the monopolist. However,
there seem to be evidence that things may change in the future,
hopefully. The only reason why Microsoft hasn't been able to remove
Linux etc.. as a threat is that they cannot buy it.

Preben
-- 
 ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
'||}
{||'                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

RE: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Robert C. Leif]

The use of XML should serve to increase competition. Microsoft and its
present competitors have the very significant deficiency of having not
provided an easy way to add new functionality to their products. The
combination of providing the sources together with the use of Ada and XML,
using XML schemas, should solve this problem.
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Preben Randhol [mailto:randhol+news@pvv.org] 
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 10:46 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Just remember that "Quality" is something that is defined by the purchaser
> and doesn't necessarily line up with the technologist's view of what makes
> something "better". One might consider Microsoft Word to be an inferior,
> buggy, bloated software product, but is that what the consumer sees? Maybe
> they see "compatibility with the rest of the world" to be a big deal. Maby
> they think "low price" is more important - or "Integration with other
> Microsoft Products" is a key value. All other things being equal, they
might
> prefer one that was less bloated and more bug-free but all other things
are
> seldom equal, are they?

Or they might not prefer it but be force into using it because allmost
everybody else uses it (or feels forced to...).

> And yes, Word is superior in many ways to earlier word processors (Does
> anybody *really* want to go back to using TECO? Well, maybe *somebody*
does,
> but they are far and few between.) and that's an example of where market
> forces allowed a better product to supplant inferior products. There are
> probably things emerging that would be "better" than Word and they may
> eventually emerge on top too. 

Well I read an article once that showed that the efficiency of writing
had not improved since 1980s despite the changes in the word processors.
However, I cannot recall where I read it so this so this cannot be
submitted as evidence ;-)

However, try writing a paper with some 20 equations and figures and
tables and you'll soon see how frustrating Word is. Top it of with that
the paper has to be in Letter format (or A4 for those who use Letter)
and you'll go nuts. Word works for two page memos, but not much more IMHO.

I don't know about TECO (probably before my time), but I don't think
WP5.1 was much poorer than the Word of today. But give me LaTeX and I'll
be happy. ;-)

> Markets work - just not necessarily overnight nor according to what
> the technologist may prefer.

The market works poorly in the desktop business as there is a monopoly
situation. The competition seem to be eaten by the monopolist. However,
there seem to be evidence that things may change in the future,
hopefully. The only reason why Microsoft hasn't been able to remove
Linux etc.. as a threat is that they cannot buy it.

Preben
-- 
 ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
'||}
{||'                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Marin David Condic]

Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnb678l5.2g1.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
>
> Or they might not prefer it but be force into using it because allmost
> everybody else uses it (or feels forced to...).
>
Nobody is "forced" into using Word - or any other word processor for that
matter. If people use it for reasons of compatibility, then (as I observed)
compatibility might be a major factor in "quality" and it is the thing that
the market appears to want over other factors (such as "efficiency" or
"reliability")


>
> Well I read an article once that showed that the efficiency of writing
> had not improved since 1980s despite the changes in the word processors.
> However, I cannot recall where I read it so this so this cannot be
> submitted as evidence ;-)
>
Evidence of what? Efficiency of writing is a whole different thing. How long
does it take Shakespear to write "Hamlet" and why does that figure into word
processors? Word processors - as with lots of other software - may have
"topped out" in terms of adding new and interesting features or improving
the way we work. Microsoft is discovering that people don't want or need
lots of spiffy new features just to write their term papers or letters to
grandma. People are coming to the conclusion that Good Enough is not nearly
so wonderful a thing as Perfect, but that it is Good enough. :-) As a
result, it changes the market equation.


> However, try writing a paper with some 20 equations and figures and
> tables and you'll soon see how frustrating Word is. Top it of with that
> the paper has to be in Letter format (or A4 for those who use Letter)
> and you'll go nuts. Word works for two page memos, but not much more IMHO.
>
You have needs that don't line up with the needs of a large majority of word
processor users. Maybe you need something special. Choices are available. If
you select Word and sacrifice the ability to write equations easily, then
perhaps there are other factors in your decision.


> I don't know about TECO (probably before my time), but I don't think
> WP5.1 was much poorer than the Word of today. But give me LaTeX and I'll
> be happy. ;-)
>
TECO was a pot-shot at a friend of mine who reads this newsgroup. He's a bit
of a luddite and a big fan of Tops-20.

If LaTeX does your job for you, great. The market worked and got you
something you needed at a price you wanted to pay. If you can dream up a
concept for a better word processor, perhaps you've got a potential
product - one that might be written in Ada (just to bring it back on-topic.
:-)


>
> The market works poorly in the desktop business as there is a monopoly
> situation. The competition seem to be eaten by the monopolist. However,
> there seem to be evidence that things may change in the future,
> hopefully. The only reason why Microsoft hasn't been able to remove
> Linux etc.. as a threat is that they cannot buy it.
>
Monopolies aren't a good thing because someone can use the enormous power to
unfairly stiffle competition. But just remember that a monopoly didn't get
there by putting a gun to your head. (Unless it is a government monopoly -
then they *did* put a gun to your head.) Microsoft got to be as big as it
did by offering free men a voluntary transaction and they accepted it.
Microsoft is also in the process of losing its monopoly because others are
offering free men a voluntary transaction and they are starting to accept
that deal instead. (Linux being that case, but there are other OS's out
there as well.)

Markets may occasionally work poorly - but from my education in economics,
the folks who study this stuff tend to agree that it is a spectrum between
totally free markets versus total command economies. If markets work poorly,
the only apparent alternative is to move along that spectrum towards a more
command-oriented economy. In every instance where that has been tried, it
has worked even more poorly than a market economy. We live in an imperfect
world. You can have a market economy where there are inequities,
inefficiencies and injustices. Or you can have a command economy where the
inequities, inefficiencies and injustices abound in far greater numbers.
I'll take markets over orders since it respects my free will.

If one sees Microsoft as making poor quality crap and using heavy-handed
tactics to harm their competitors, the long term answer isn't to seek
government interference. That may be a necessary step, but it doesn't create
a long term solution. The long term solution is to come up with *better*
products and market them successfully. Microsoft can't stop you from
producing a *better* office suite or OS and making it available to the
consumer. You have to figure out what "better" means to the consumer and try
to deliver it. Doing so means the consumer wins.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <b4282b$j9v$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>, "Marin David Condic" <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org> writes:

> TECO was a pot-shot at a friend of mine who reads this newsgroup. He's a bit
> of a luddite and a big fan of Tops-20.

But TECO has fans who have never used TOPS-20.  I use it all the time on
the latest version of VMS.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Marin David Condic]

Larry Kilgallen <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message
news:ByPxiDf3JYd2@eisner.encompasserve.org...
>
> But TECO has fans who have never used TOPS-20.  I use it all the time on
> the latest version of VMS.

I was introduced to it on Tops-10. It probably existed in various
incarnations of the PDP-11 as well.

MDC


--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnb678l5.2g1.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
>>
>> Or they might not prefer it but be force into using it because allmost
>> everybody else uses it (or feels forced to...).
>>
> Nobody is "forced" into using Word - or any other word processor for that
> matter. If people use it for reasons of compatibility, then (as I observed)
> compatibility might be a major factor in "quality" and it is the thing that
> the market appears to want over other factors (such as "efficiency" or
> "reliability")

Oh? So when the university chooses Word as the standard I'm not forced
to use it? And who is choosing it? The administration, who writes
letters etc...

> Efficiency of writing is a whole different thing.

The point was that the productivity hadn't increased.

> You have needs that don't line up with the needs of a large majority of word
> processor users. Maybe you need something special. Choices are available. If
> you select Word and sacrifice the ability to write equations easily, then
> perhaps there are other factors in your decision.

No the point is that I cannot make the decision. When you work with
others it is not always your decision. Some conferences even requires
the manuscript to be in Word (sic!).

> If LaTeX does your job for you, great. The market worked and got you
> something you needed at a price you wanted to pay. If you can dream up a
> concept for a better word processor, perhaps you've got a potential
> product - one that might be written in Ada (just to bring it back on-topic.
>:-)

LaTeX is free as in free beer and has been around for year. Yes of
course, but the big problem is the inertia. You cannot easily produce a
Word compatible word processor, bcs the word format is neither open or
fixed. And until you can you cannot compete because *everybody* is using
Word. I cannot simply send a document written in say abiword to some
other person and expect him to have abiword on his computer. The problem
is that people are expecting word.

> Monopolies aren't a good thing because someone can use the enormous power to
> unfairly stiffle competition. But just remember that a monopoly didn't get
> there by putting a gun to your head. (Unless it is a government monopoly -
> then they *did* put a gun to your head.) Microsoft got to be as big as it
> did by offering free men a voluntary transaction and they accepted it.
> Microsoft is also in the process of losing its monopoly because others are
> offering free men a voluntary transaction and they are starting to accept
> that deal instead. (Linux being that case, but there are other OS's out
> there as well.)

Non that gains popularity as far as I know. My point is that Linux is
borderlining to work outside the traditional market. In the way that you
don't pay with money but rather with source code. I'm pretty sure that
had Linux been a small company, they would have been squished long ago.

> If one sees Microsoft as making poor quality crap and using heavy-handed

As opposed to quality crap ;-)

> tactics to harm their competitors, the long term answer isn't to seek
> government interference. That may be a necessary step, but it doesn't create
> a long term solution. The long term solution is to come up with *better*
> products and market them successfully. Microsoft can't stop you from
> producing a *better* office suite or OS and making it available to the
> consumer. You have to figure out what "better" means to the consumer and try
> to deliver it. Doing so means the consumer wins.

No, I never said anything about the government interfering, unless there
is illegal things happening. What I point out is that the utopic goal of
any firm in the market is world domination. Usually there are several
competing firms so there is a competition. But in the cases where there
isn't, the market has problems. The market will not make sure that the
product of best quality wins.

But a challange: Make a better Outlook which protects against viruses
and try to make money on it.

-- 
 ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
'||}
{||'                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Frank J. Lhota]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnb69b7q.4de.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> Oh? So when the university chooses Word as the standard I'm not forced
> to use it? And who is choosing it? The administration, who writes
> letters etc...

Presumably, the university only mandates that the file format for documents
be MS Word. There are other word processors that work with files in the MS
Word format, including WordPerfect and StarOffice. One could use these
products in place of MS Word and still meet the university mandate. If you
are displeased with MS Word, please look into the alternatives.

> The point was that the productivity hadn't increased.

It depends on the time period. My experience is that my colleagues and I
wrote much more efficiently with MS Word 6 than with previous word
processors. Certainly, we had a big productivity gain over the WordStar
days. Admittedly, the more recent versions of Word have not had that many
big improvements. The reasons for upgrading from Word 2000 to Word XP have
not been all that compelling, and for that reason, MS Office sales have been
down.

> No the point is that I cannot make the decision. When you work with
> others it is not always your decision. Some conferences even requires
> the manuscript to be in Word (sic!).

Again, look at your alternatives. I know some diehard WordPerfect buffs
(going back to the MS-DOS days) who have never entered a keystroke into MS
Word. They have submitted papers to conferences by editing the papers in
WordPerfect, then saving the document in MS Word format.

> LaTeX is free as in free beer and has been around for year. Yes of
> course, but the big problem is the inertia. You cannot easily produce a
> Word compatible word processor, bcs the word format is neither open or
> fixed. And until you can you cannot compete because *everybody* is using
> Word. I cannot simply send a document written in say abiword to some
> other person and expect him to have abiword on his computer. The problem
> is that people are expecting word.

I'm sorry, I have just gotten too old to take this argument seriously. I
recall the lament that as bad as WordStar is, it will never be replaced
because of all those WordStar documents, and all those people trained in
WordStar. Then WordPerfect came along, and suddenly that became the de-facto
standard. And yes, there was a time where conferences, businesses, agencies
and universities standardized on the WordPerfect format. Suddenly, the
conventional wisdom was that WordPerfect was irreplacable. A few years
later, WordPerfect was frequently replaced with MS Word. Now MS Word is the
"invincible"leader of the word processor world. "It will never be replaced!"
Yeah, right.

To be blunt about it, the MS Word of today looks a lot like WordStar before
its fall. There have not been any exciting enhancements in the latest
versions of MS Word, just as there was nothing earth shattering in the
version of WordStar released before WordPerfect. With WordStar, they were
losing customers in trickles before they lost them in droves to WordPerfect.
We're already seeing that happen with MS Word -- sales are down for the
latest version. MS may very well be resting on their laurels, but they do so
at the risk of suffering the same fate as Micropro and WordPerfect. There
are only two directions for MS Word to go: it must really improve, and fast,
or it will join other outdated software that gathers dust in attics.

> But a challange: Make a better Outlook which protects against viruses
> and try to make money on it.

Have you tried Opera? Eudora?

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Preben Randhol]

Frank J. Lhota wrote:
> later, WordPerfect was frequently replaced with MS Word. Now MS Word is the
> "invincible"leader of the word processor world. "It will never be replaced!"
> Yeah, right.

Nono I didn't say never. I said the problem is the inertia. Why do you
think Sun is giving away StarOffice? Not that I claim that StarOffice is
better than MS Office.

>> But a challange: Make a better Outlook which protects against viruses
>> and try to make money on it.
> 
> Have you tried Opera? Eudora?

I use Mutt <http://www.mutt.org/>. I'm not looking for a new email
reader myself. However, I would like to know how many percent of Windows
users who use Eudora (which is gratis) compared to Outlook. Eudora is of
course a better alternative and I suggest it to windows users. Opera I
use as a web browser from time to time.

-- 
 ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
'||}
{||'                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Frank J. Lhota]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnb69jkh.13o.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> Nono I didn't say never. I said the problem is the inertia. Why do you
> think Sun is giving away StarOffice? Not that I claim that StarOffice is
> better than MS Office.

Sun is "giving away" StarOffice because a lot of it covered by the GNU
public licence. They have no choice in the matter. And for the record, I
have also not claimed that StarOffice is better than MS Office -- yet. The
difference between the products, however, has lessened with every release. I
fully expect that sometime in the next few years, a version of StarOffice
will come out that the critics will rate as good as the MS suite. That day
will be a good day for short-selling Microsoft stock.

> I use Mutt <http://www.mutt.org/>. I'm not looking for a new email
> reader myself. However, I would like to know how many percent of Windows
> users who use Eudora (which is gratis) compared to Outlook. Eudora is of
> course a better alternative and I suggest it to windows users. Opera I
> use as a web browser from time to time.

Thanks for the recommendation for Mutt. Opera can also be as a mail client
and newsgroup reader, as well as a web browser. In all of these tasks,
Opera's performance is outstanding.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Pascal Obry]

"Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.FrankLho@rcn.com> writes:

> Thanks for the recommendation for Mutt. Opera can also be as a mail client
> and newsgroup reader, as well as a web browser. In all of these tasks,
> Opera's performance is outstanding.

Yet Opera is buggy and has proved to be a problem during AWS development.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Preben Randhol]

Pascal Obry wrote:
> 
> "Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.FrankLho@rcn.com> writes:
> 
>> Thanks for the recommendation for Mutt. Opera can also be as a mail client
>> and newsgroup reader, as well as a web browser. In all of these tasks,
>> Opera's performance is outstanding.
> 
> Yet Opera is buggy and has proved to be a problem during AWS development.

In what way.


-- 
 ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
'||}
{||'                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Pascal Obry]

Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> writes:

> Pascal Obry wrote:
> > Yet Opera is buggy and has proved to be a problem during AWS development.
> 
> In what way.

In many different ways, I certainly do not remember each case. One of them was
for chunked encoding and SSL. Each chunk (the chunk size and the chunk data)
must be sent together (with the same write socket routine) otherwise Opera
gets confused and is just not able to understand the HTTPS stream.

We have never found a protocol bug with Netscape or IE for example.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Preben Randhol]

Pascal Obry wrote:
> 
> Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> writes:
> 
>> Pascal Obry wrote:
>> > Yet Opera is buggy and has proved to be a problem during AWS development.
>> 
>> In what way.
> 
> In many different ways, I certainly do not remember each case. One of them was
> for chunked encoding and SSL. Each chunk (the chunk size and the chunk data)
> must be sent together (with the same write socket routine) otherwise Opera
> gets confused and is just not able to understand the HTTPS stream.
> 
> We have never found a protocol bug with Netscape or IE for example.

Did you forward this to the Opera people?

-- 
 ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
'||}
{||'                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Pascal Obry]

Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> writes:

> Did you forward this to the Opera people?

No not yet. I hope to find the time at some point.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Preben Randhol]

Pascal Obry wrote:
> 
> Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> writes:
> 
>> Did you forward this to the Opera people?
> 
> No not yet. I hope to find the time at some point.

If you have a list of problems and what is wrong I can forward it for
you.

-- 
 ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
'||}
{||'                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Frank J. Lhota]

"Pascal Obry" <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:uznoackpo.fsf@wanadoo.fr...
> Yet Opera is buggy and has proved to be a problem during AWS development.

I'm sorry to hear that you're having problems Opera. I have not had problems
with it, but then that could be due to my configuration and / or browsing
habits. Which version are you using? They have recently released version 7.
Perhaps the bugs you have encountered have been fixed.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Preben Randhol]

Frank J. Lhota wrote:
> "Preben Randhol" <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnb69jkh.13o.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
>> Nono I didn't say never. I said the problem is the inertia. Why do you
>> think Sun is giving away StarOffice? Not that I claim that StarOffice is
>> better than MS Office.
> 
> Sun is "giving away" StarOffice because a lot of it covered by the GNU
> public licence. They have no choice in the matter. And for the record, I

No, the original Star Office which Sun bought was a product you had to
pay. There was also a free version (gratis), but it was a bit reduced
IIRC. Sun released it to the OpenOffice initative because they saw that
as long as they cannot win in the desktop arena they cannot get people
to switch to solaris etc... Studies have shown that the biggest
hinderance in switching from Windows Desktop to Linux (or Solaris) for
most companies (small-medium sized) is the lack of MS Office or
something similar.

> Thanks for the recommendation for Mutt. Opera can also be as a mail client
> and newsgroup reader, as well as a web browser. In all of these tasks,
> Opera's performance is outstanding.

Haven't tried this. But Opera is Norwegian product you know ;-)

-- 
 ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
'||}
{||'                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Marin David Condic]

That's pretty much it. Word formatted documents are hip today, but that
doesn't give it permanent domonance. New documents get built all the time
and compatibility isn't always necessary, so a genuinely new product with
some new and desirable features could easily supplant Word - and probably
will. Granted, the change is *not* going to happen overnight so one can't
just wish it were so and expect it to happen, but it *can* happen over time.

So if one finds a word processor that has some big advantages over Word, the
best thing to do is just start using it. If you can produce documents with
it your only requirement is that you be able to give those documents to
someone else and that they have some means of actually viewing it - and
possibly changing it. (Barring requirements imposed by institutions) How do
you get there? Pick a route - like Word compatible files, PDF files, perhaps
even building a word processor that stores itself in the document so it will
execute wherever you send it. Creativity is important in trying to build
that better mousetrap. :-)

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

Frank J. Lhota <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:oG39a.24394$8f7.12579@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
>
> I'm sorry, I have just gotten too old to take this argument seriously. I
> recall the lament that as bad as WordStar is, it will never be replaced
> because of all those WordStar documents, and all those people trained in
> WordStar. Then WordPerfect came along, and suddenly that became the
de-facto
> standard. And yes, there was a time where conferences, businesses,
agencies
> and universities standardized on the WordPerfect format. Suddenly, the
> conventional wisdom was that WordPerfect was irreplacable. A few years
> later, WordPerfect was frequently replaced with MS Word. Now MS Word is
the
> "invincible"leader of the word processor world. "It will never be
replaced!"
> Yeah, right.
>

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> That's pretty much it. Word formatted documents are hip today, but that
> doesn't give it permanent domonance. New documents get built all the time
> and compatibility isn't always necessary, so a genuinely new product with
> some new and desirable features could easily supplant Word - and probably
> will. Granted, the change is *not* going to happen overnight so one can't
> just wish it were so and expect it to happen, but it *can* happen over time.

One evidence of this is that more and more governments are getting aware
of the problem of locking their information in to one propitarian format
which requires a certain software to access. The Peru vs Microsoft story
shows this quite clearly. If one had a format which was accessable by
any software (as its spec was not hidden) would lead to more
competition. It wouldn't matter if I wrote my document in say AdaOrd [*]
and you wrote it in Word as long as both where fully compliant with the
format. Then it would be how well this program worked with other
products that counted more. Say AdaOrd was excellent in Linux while Word
was still the best for Windows, then matter of plattform would not
count. This is also why you won't see a MS Office for Linux until
Microsoft gives up in the OS department.

> So if one finds a word processor that has some big advantages over Word, the
> best thing to do is just start using it. If you can produce documents with
> it your only requirement is that you be able to give those documents to
> someone else and that they have some means of actually viewing it - and
> possibly changing it. (Barring requirements imposed by institutions) How do
> you get there? Pick a route - like Word compatible files, PDF files, perhaps
> even building a word processor that stores itself in the document so it will
> execute wherever you send it. Creativity is important in trying to build
> that better mousetrap. :-)

:-) Yes although sending the WP would probably increase the possibility
for trojan horses and the files would be huge. 

Actually I have seen documents from courts in the US written in abiword
(http://www.abisource.com/). Search for abiword and law on yahoo.

[*] AdaOrd is of course a non-existing product. (Ord = Word in
Norwegian. So I got a chance to teach another word ;-))

-- 
 ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
'||}
{||'                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Marin David Condic]

That's a good example of customer demand eventually driving a market. I
absolutely agree that open data formats are a very important thing for
customers. For something like a word processor, this is especially important
because documents may have to be dealt with over a long stretch of time or
be shared on a variety of hardware & OS's. ASCII is excellent for that - if
limited in capability. You see an example of it with HTML, although that has
flaws with respect to incompatibilities in different implementations. I
share Dr. Leif's enthusiasm for XML in this regard and I think it would be a
fine format for storage of lots of things. If someone were contemplating
building an Ada-Office product, storing word processor, spreadsheet, rolodex
data, etc in XML would leave the door open for lots of other players to
utilize the data in some form. That would make it an attractive choice for
individuals and organizations to adopt.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnb6bvai.4h4.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
>
> One evidence of this is that more and more governments are getting aware
> of the problem of locking their information in to one propitarian format
> which requires a certain software to access. The Peru vs Microsoft story
> shows this quite clearly. If one had a format which was accessable by
> any software (as its spec was not hidden) would lead to more
> competition. It wouldn't matter if I wrote my document in say AdaOrd [*]
> and you wrote it in Word as long as both where fully compliant with the
> format. Then it would be how well this program worked with other
> products that counted more. Say AdaOrd was excellent in Linux while Word
> was still the best for Windows, then matter of plattform would not
> count. This is also why you won't see a MS Office for Linux until
> Microsoft gives up in the OS department.
>

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Ludovic Brenta]

"Marin David Condic" <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org> writes:

> I share Dr. Leif's enthusiasm for XML in this regard and I think it
> would be a fine format for storage of lots of things. If someone
> were contemplating building an Ada-Office product, storing word
> processor, spreadsheet, rolodex data, etc in XML would leave the
> door open for lots of other players to utilize the data in some
> form. That would make it an attractive choice for individuals and
> organizations to adopt.

That's exactly what OpenOffice.org does; the file formats used by the
word processor, spreadsheet and all the tools are gzipped collections
of XML files, with some pictures thrown in where necessary.  My only
gripes with OpenOffice is that it's written in C++ and that it has its
own (portable) GUI toolkit.

So, an Ada-Office (using GtkAda, of course) that used the same file
formats as OpenOffice would be a great thing, IMHO.  I'd even be
willing to participate in its development.

--
Ludovic Brenta.

RE: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Robert C. Leif]

You will first need a version of XForms with an interface to Ada and the
capability of supporting external schema and XSL files. Then, the first part
of an Office type product to create would be a spreadsheet that had unique
user definable names for columns and rows. This spreadsheet could replace
the tables in the other office type products. The macro language should be a
subset of Ada. The graphics can be done in SVG. The formulas would be stored
and visualized with MathML. If Ada 200Y, includes a compile time assertion
for units, then this product would have a very significant advantage for
scientific and engineering uses.
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Ludovic Brenta [mailto:ludovic.brenta@insalien.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 5:28 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

"Marin David Condic" <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org> writes:

> I share Dr. Leif's enthusiasm for XML in this regard and I think it
> would be a fine format for storage of lots of things. If someone
> were contemplating building an Ada-Office product, storing word
> processor, spreadsheet, rolodex data, etc in XML would leave the
> door open for lots of other players to utilize the data in some
> form. That would make it an attractive choice for individuals and
> organizations to adopt.

That's exactly what OpenOffice.org does; the file formats used by the
word processor, spreadsheet and all the tools are gzipped collections
of XML files, with some pictures thrown in where necessary.  My only
gripes with OpenOffice is that it's written in C++ and that it has its
own (portable) GUI toolkit.

So, an Ada-Office (using GtkAda, of course) that used the same file
formats as OpenOffice would be a great thing, IMHO.  I'd even be
willing to participate in its development.

--
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> flaws with respect to incompatibilities in different implementations. I
> share Dr. Leif's enthusiasm for XML in this regard and I think it would be a
> fine format for storage of lots of things. If someone were contemplating
> building an Ada-Office product, storing word processor, spreadsheet, rolodex
> data, etc in XML would leave the door open for lots of other players to
> utilize the data in some form. That would make it an attractive choice for
> individuals and organizations to adopt.

What I like about XML is that it is consistent and can be verified given
that a DTD is supplied. The XML Schemas thingy I cannot comment on as I
haven't look much at it yet.

However, what I find wrong is that one use it for *everything*. XML is a
rather verbose format and it is not something one wants to hand edit.
This is usually find as you probably have to tool that created it in the
first place. What puzzels me is why one consider XML to be a good choice
for SVG. I thought the point of SVG was to minimize the space needed to
represent a drawing and to be able to scale it. But that XML is chosen
seems to me that it is only the latter which is considered important.

But that said I think it is good that gnumeric (excel-like spreadsheet),
abiword, koffice etc... use XML as file format.

But to build an Ada-Office product, this only makes sense if one
rethinks the way a word processor/spreadsheet should be. Now most office
packages are clones of other office packages. Gnumeric, Abiword and
openOffice is similar to MS Word/Office. KWord is more similar to
FramMaker.

An Ada-Word which allowed you to type fastly whaterev you liked because
it could be set up with good and consistent templates. Which had some of
the box features of FramMaker, the typesetting powers of LaTeX. Which
had referencing and labeling and table of content functionality as good
as LaTeX would be very nice. And that it could work easily with other
tools.

-- 
 ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
'||}
{||'                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Faust]

"Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net> writes:


> Have you tried Opera? Eudora?

Or Calypso or even better, Oort.

-- 

natsu-gusa ya   / tsuwamono-domo-ga   / yume no ato
summer grasses  / strong ones         / dreams site
 
Summer grasses,
All that remains
Of soldier's dreams
(Basho trans. Stryk)

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Faust]

Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> writes:


> fixed. And until you can you cannot compete because *everybody* is using
> Word. I cannot simply send a document written in say abiword to some
> other person and expect him to have abiword on his computer. The problem
> is that people are expecting word.

Use latex.
Generate PDFs by using dvifpdf.
Send them PDFs.



-- 

natsu-gusa ya   / tsuwamono-domo-ga   / yume no ato
summer grasses  / strong ones         / dreams site
 
Summer grasses,
All that remains
Of soldier's dreams
(Basho trans. Stryk)

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Preben Randhol]

Faust wrote:
> Use latex.
> Generate PDFs by using dvifpdf.
> Send them PDFs.

Sure, but not if the reciever is supposed to edit the document :-)

-- 
  ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
 +||-.
.+--+'
'+||-                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Preben" == Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> writes:

Preben> Sure, but not if the reciever is supposed to edit the document

Exactly. Cf. http://www.rfc1149.net/documents/whynotword

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Preben Randhol]

Samuel Tardieu wrote:
>>>>>> "Preben" == Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> writes:
> 
>Preben> Sure, but not if the reciever is supposed to edit the document
> 
> Exactly. Cf. http://www.rfc1149.net/documents/whynotword

Good page! I'll link to it.

-- 
  ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
 +||-.
.+--+'
'+||-                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

RE: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Robert C. Leif]

For instance, none of Microsoft's competitors have had the brains to use
Ada. Microsoft cannot be held responsible for the stupidity of its
competitors, such as their use of Java. In fact, IBM did more to assure
Microsoft's monopoly than Microsoft. IBM spread the impression that only
Microchannel based PCs were suitable for OS2.
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Marin David Condic [mailto:mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:00 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnb678l5.2g1.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
>
> Or they might not prefer it but be force into using it because allmost
> everybody else uses it (or feels forced to...).
>
Nobody is "forced" into using Word - or any other word processor for that
matter. If people use it for reasons of compatibility, then (as I observed)
compatibility might be a major factor in "quality" and it is the thing that
the market appears to want over other factors (such as "efficiency" or
"reliability")


>
> Well I read an article once that showed that the efficiency of writing
> had not improved since 1980s despite the changes in the word processors.
> However, I cannot recall where I read it so this so this cannot be
> submitted as evidence ;-)
>
Evidence of what? Efficiency of writing is a whole different thing. How long
does it take Shakespear to write "Hamlet" and why does that figure into word
processors? Word processors - as with lots of other software - may have
"topped out" in terms of adding new and interesting features or improving
the way we work. Microsoft is discovering that people don't want or need
lots of spiffy new features just to write their term papers or letters to
grandma. People are coming to the conclusion that Good Enough is not nearly
so wonderful a thing as Perfect, but that it is Good enough. :-) As a
result, it changes the market equation.


> However, try writing a paper with some 20 equations and figures and
> tables and you'll soon see how frustrating Word is. Top it of with that
> the paper has to be in Letter format (or A4 for those who use Letter)
> and you'll go nuts. Word works for two page memos, but not much more IMHO.
>
You have needs that don't line up with the needs of a large majority of word
processor users. Maybe you need something special. Choices are available. If
you select Word and sacrifice the ability to write equations easily, then
perhaps there are other factors in your decision.


> I don't know about TECO (probably before my time), but I don't think
> WP5.1 was much poorer than the Word of today. But give me LaTeX and I'll
> be happy. ;-)
>
TECO was a pot-shot at a friend of mine who reads this newsgroup. He's a bit
of a luddite and a big fan of Tops-20.

If LaTeX does your job for you, great. The market worked and got you
something you needed at a price you wanted to pay. If you can dream up a
concept for a better word processor, perhaps you've got a potential
product - one that might be written in Ada (just to bring it back on-topic.
:-)


>
> The market works poorly in the desktop business as there is a monopoly
> situation. The competition seem to be eaten by the monopolist. However,
> there seem to be evidence that things may change in the future,
> hopefully. The only reason why Microsoft hasn't been able to remove
> Linux etc.. as a threat is that they cannot buy it.
>
Monopolies aren't a good thing because someone can use the enormous power to
unfairly stiffle competition. But just remember that a monopoly didn't get
there by putting a gun to your head. (Unless it is a government monopoly -
then they *did* put a gun to your head.) Microsoft got to be as big as it
did by offering free men a voluntary transaction and they accepted it.
Microsoft is also in the process of losing its monopoly because others are
offering free men a voluntary transaction and they are starting to accept
that deal instead. (Linux being that case, but there are other OS's out
there as well.)

Markets may occasionally work poorly - but from my education in economics,
the folks who study this stuff tend to agree that it is a spectrum between
totally free markets versus total command economies. If markets work poorly,
the only apparent alternative is to move along that spectrum towards a more
command-oriented economy. In every instance where that has been tried, it
has worked even more poorly than a market economy. We live in an imperfect
world. You can have a market economy where there are inequities,
inefficiencies and injustices. Or you can have a command economy where the
inequities, inefficiencies and injustices abound in far greater numbers.
I'll take markets over orders since it respects my free will.

If one sees Microsoft as making poor quality crap and using heavy-handed
tactics to harm their competitors, the long term answer isn't to seek
government interference. That may be a necessary step, but it doesn't create
a long term solution. The long term solution is to come up with *better*
products and market them successfully. Microsoft can't stop you from
producing a *better* office suite or OS and making it available to the
consumer. You have to figure out what "better" means to the consumer and try
to deliver it. Doing so means the consumer wins.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> For instance, none of Microsoft's competitors have had the brains to use
> Ada. Microsoft cannot be held responsible for the stupidity of its
> competitors, such as their use of Java. In fact, IBM did more to assure
> Microsoft's monopoly than Microsoft. IBM spread the impression that only
> Microchannel based PCs were suitable for OS2.
> Bob Leif

 From what I understand, IBM was also stuck in assembly language
for OS/2. This made it a huge task to move up to 32-bit platforms.
You also just had to love those "O/S Error # 062.. have a nice day"
type of messages (the "have a nice day" was implied ;-)

Microsoft OTOH had the fortuitous luck(?) that they had a project
going on, that later turned into NT, which was not stuck in
assembly language, and was designed to be platform portable. The
rest is history.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Georg Bauhaus]

Marin David Condic <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org> wrote:
: Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote in message
: news:slrnb678l5.2g1.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
:>
:> Or they might not prefer it but be force into using it because allmost
:> everybody else uses it (or feels forced to...).

: Nobody is "forced" into using Word - or any other word processor for that
: matter.

Well, certainly we may choose our word processors, as well as
programming languages, but your original statement said that
the (not really existent smithonian) free market will let the
better product win, with better not specifically defined. Now
saying that the better product is the one with the preferable
qualities you mentioned will clearly make both C and Visual
Basic better programming languages that Ada.

-- Georg

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Marin David Condic]

O.K. I can live with that. Given that one needs to ask what "Better" means
to the programming language consumer.

So C/C++ may be "better" because there is a huge installed base of software
out there that can be used to gain leverage in building apps. Or perhaps it
is a matter of familiarity the programmers have with the language. Or maybe
it is the availability of lots of tools for developing in those languages.
Or the low cost of compilers. Or infrastructure of home-grown support tools.
Or availability of compilers for target hardware. Or combinations of all of
the above and probably a few more.

The point is that Ada standing around saying "I'm *technically* better than
C/C++/Java/Whatever..." is ignoring what it is that the *consumer* of
programming languages thinks is "better" and may be interested in buying. I
suspect that if Ada had a large library of utility code, a slick IDE, a GUI
and maybe some support tools it might find less resistance because it would
be addressing more of what the consumer wants to buy. Right now, it is not
"better" in the minds of many because other languages are doing a better job
of offering development leverage to the consumer.

One ignores Adam Smith at one's peril. Its sort of like ignoring gravity.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message
news:b42vm6$24u$2@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de...
>
> Well, certainly we may choose our word processors, as well as
> programming languages, but your original statement said that
> the (not really existent smithonian) free market will let the
> better product win, with better not specifically defined. Now
> saying that the better product is the one with the preferable
> qualities you mentioned will clearly make both C and Visual
> Basic better programming languages that Ada.
>

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[tmoran]

>O.K. I can live with that. Given that one needs to ask what "Better" means
>to the programming language consumer.
>So C/C++ may be "better" because there is a huge installed base of software
  Darwin wouldn't have said "There are a lot of ants in the world,
therefore ants must be the fittest creatures."  In a niche with certain
resources and problems, ants do very well.  In another niche, in the
same world, humans do quite well.  If humans want to displace ants in
a location, they have to modify the environment in human friendly,
ant unfriendly, ways.  If we want Ada to displace C in some market,
we need to modify that market - pointing out the dangers of C, encouraging
software liability laws, getting government seed money, building
convenient Ada libraries, whatever - in Ada friendly, C unfriendly, ways.

>One ignores Adam Smith at one's peril. Its sort of like ignoring gravity.
  Free Markets are to Adam Smith as apples are to Isaac Newton.  Newton
didn't say "gravity makes everything fall, therefore satellites can't
work" and Smith didn't say "Free Markets are the single best solution
under all circumstances".

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Georg Bauhaus]

Marin David Condic <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org> wrote:
 
: The point is that Ada standing around saying "I'm *technically* better than
: C/C++/Java/Whatever..." is ignoring what it is that the *consumer* of
: programming languages thinks is "better" and may be interested in buying.

Yes, I think that describes it very well, yet with ISE's Eiffel
you get a standard library of utility code, a slick IDE, both a portable
and a system specific GUI, database interfacing, parsing, XML, 
language defined tasking, commercial support from various compiler
producers, excellent literature, but still, is it in wide use?

: I suspect that if Ada had a large library of utility code, a slick IDE, a GUI
: and maybe some support tools it might find less resistance because it would
: be addressing more of what the consumer wants to buy. Right now, it is not
: "better" in the minds of many because other languages are doing a better job
: of offering development leverage to the consumer.
 
: One ignores Adam Smith at one's peril. Its sort of like ignoring gravity.

And that should include a look at "The Theory of Moral Sentiments",
e.g. at http://www.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/smith/



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Georg Bauhaus                              bauhaus@futureapps.de
Future Apps GmbH
phone: +49 203 306 1560

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Marin David Condic]

Well, a lot more goes into making a language popular than just large
libraries of stuff. Given that Eiffel doesn't have a huge institutional
sponsor to push it and doesn't have a huge installed base of related
products or users (for example, the relationship between Unix and C), it has
done pretty well for itself. I think my position is that there are certain
necessary conditions that have to be there or it becomes
difficult-to-impossible for a language to thrive. If Ada wants to compete
with the likes of C/C++/Java and is looking to carve out a big slice of the
pie, it has to look at what it is that makes a language attractive to the
consumers of languages. Large libraries of utility code is one factor that I
think needs to be there to offer the developer leverage. A GUI interface in
some form is another factor. Undoubtedly, there are others. These things
don't have to be part of the standard, but they need to be available with
most compilers in such a way that people think of them as being part of the
language.

There is no simple answer here. All I can offer is that after twenty years
of Ada basically providing a compiler and saying it is superior for
reliability and long lived, large projects, people are staying away from it
in droves. We don't want to abandon the reliability and maintainability, but
looking at what the market wants and trying to provide that might help turn
that tide. Ignoring the market and saying "They're all a bunch of idiots who
don't know what's good for them..." isn't going to help. :-)

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
news:b45mqa$h1m$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de...
>
> Yes, I think that describes it very well, yet with ISE's Eiffel
> you get a standard library of utility code, a slick IDE, both a portable
> and a system specific GUI, database interfacing, parsing, XML,
> language defined tasking, commercial support from various compiler
> producers, excellent literature, but still, is it in wide use?
>

RE: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Robert C. Leif]

For instance, none of Microsoft's competitors have had the brains to use
Ada. Microsoft cannot be held responsible for the stupidity of its
competitors, such as their use of Java. In fact, IBM did more to assure
Microsoft's monopoly than Microsoft. IBM spread the impression that only
Microchannel based PCs were suitable for OS2.
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Marin David Condic [mailto:mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:00 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnb678l5.2g1.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
>
> Or they might not prefer it but be force into using it because allmost
> everybody else uses it (or feels forced to...).
>
Nobody is "forced" into using Word - or any other word processor for that
matter. If people use it for reasons of compatibility, then (as I observed)
compatibility might be a major factor in "quality" and it is the thing that
the market appears to want over other factors (such as "efficiency" or
"reliability")


>
> Well I read an article once that showed that the efficiency of writing
> had not improved since 1980s despite the changes in the word processors.
> However, I cannot recall where I read it so this so this cannot be
> submitted as evidence ;-)
>
Evidence of what? Efficiency of writing is a whole different thing. How long
does it take Shakespear to write "Hamlet" and why does that figure into word
processors? Word processors - as with lots of other software - may have
"topped out" in terms of adding new and interesting features or improving
the way we work. Microsoft is discovering that people don't want or need
lots of spiffy new features just to write their term papers or letters to
grandma. People are coming to the conclusion that Good Enough is not nearly
so wonderful a thing as Perfect, but that it is Good enough. :-) As a
result, it changes the market equation.


> However, try writing a paper with some 20 equations and figures and
> tables and you'll soon see how frustrating Word is. Top it of with that
> the paper has to be in Letter format (or A4 for those who use Letter)
> and you'll go nuts. Word works for two page memos, but not much more IMHO.
>
You have needs that don't line up with the needs of a large majority of word
processor users. Maybe you need something special. Choices are available. If
you select Word and sacrifice the ability to write equations easily, then
perhaps there are other factors in your decision.


> I don't know about TECO (probably before my time), but I don't think
> WP5.1 was much poorer than the Word of today. But give me LaTeX and I'll
> be happy. ;-)
>
TECO was a pot-shot at a friend of mine who reads this newsgroup. He's a bit
of a luddite and a big fan of Tops-20.

If LaTeX does your job for you, great. The market worked and got you
something you needed at a price you wanted to pay. If you can dream up a
concept for a better word processor, perhaps you've got a potential
product - one that might be written in Ada (just to bring it back on-topic.
:-)


>
> The market works poorly in the desktop business as there is a monopoly
> situation. The competition seem to be eaten by the monopolist. However,
> there seem to be evidence that things may change in the future,
> hopefully. The only reason why Microsoft hasn't been able to remove
> Linux etc.. as a threat is that they cannot buy it.
>
Monopolies aren't a good thing because someone can use the enormous power to
unfairly stiffle competition. But just remember that a monopoly didn't get
there by putting a gun to your head. (Unless it is a government monopoly -
then they *did* put a gun to your head.) Microsoft got to be as big as it
did by offering free men a voluntary transaction and they accepted it.
Microsoft is also in the process of losing its monopoly because others are
offering free men a voluntary transaction and they are starting to accept
that deal instead. (Linux being that case, but there are other OS's out
there as well.)

Markets may occasionally work poorly - but from my education in economics,
the folks who study this stuff tend to agree that it is a spectrum between
totally free markets versus total command economies. If markets work poorly,
the only apparent alternative is to move along that spectrum towards a more
command-oriented economy. In every instance where that has been tried, it
has worked even more poorly than a market economy. We live in an imperfect
world. You can have a market economy where there are inequities,
inefficiencies and injustices. Or you can have a command economy where the
inequities, inefficiencies and injustices abound in far greater numbers.
I'll take markets over orders since it respects my free will.

If one sees Microsoft as making poor quality crap and using heavy-handed
tactics to harm their competitors, the long term answer isn't to seek
government interference. That may be a necessary step, but it doesn't create
a long term solution. The long term solution is to come up with *better*
products and market them successfully. Microsoft can't stop you from
producing a *better* office suite or OS and making it available to the
consumer. You have to figure out what "better" means to the consumer and try
to deliver it. Doing so means the consumer wins.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 15:53:54 GMT, "Frank J. Lhota"
<NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net> wrote:

>> Unfortunately, as this points out in yet another way, the classic Adam
>> Smith free market works very poorly for software.
>
>There is a simple experiment that can show that the market for software, for
>the most part, works fairly well.  [...]

What does your example show? That technological progress does exist?
How does this reveal the efficiency of free (is it?) market for
choosing best software and hardware solutions? You have compared old
computers with new ones, apples and oranges instead of comparing, for
instance, 32- vs. 64-bit processors, Pentium  vs. Alpha, C++ vs. Ada
95. Should you do that, probably, the result would be not so exciting.

---
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Frank J. Lhota]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
news:3vo86vk60e69shjgqdbpp6e5pb8qfop3hr@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 15:53:54 GMT, "Frank J. Lhota"
> <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net> wrote:
> What does your example show? That technological progress does exist?
> How does this reveal the efficiency of free (is it?) market for
> choosing best software and hardware solutions? You have compared old
> computers with new ones, apples and oranges instead of comparing, for
> instance, 32- vs. 64-bit processors, Pentium  vs. Alpha, C++ vs. Ada
> 95. Should you do that, probably, the result would be not so exciting.

Of course, progress takes place in all fields, but I defy you to identify
another industry where we have seen so many dramatic improvements in such a
short period of time. Granted, it is hard to quantify how "exciting" certain
changes are, but the pace at which these enhancements have been made suggest
a very efficient market indeed.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Preben Randhol]

Frank J. Lhota wrote:
> Of course, progress takes place in all fields, but I defy you to identify
> another industry where we have seen so many dramatic improvements in such a
> short period of time. Granted, it is hard to quantify how "exciting" certain
> changes are, but the pace at which these enhancements have been made suggest
> a very efficient market indeed.

What has really happened the last say 5 years in software?

-- 
 ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
'||}
{||'                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Frank J. Lhota]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnb69j5t.13o.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> What has really happened the last say 5 years in software?

Off the top of my head, I'd say XML, SOAP and the rise of Linux. Not a bad 5
years.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Preben Randhol]

Frank J. Lhota wrote:
> "Preben Randhol" <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnb69j5t.13o.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
>> What has really happened the last say 5 years in software?
> 
> Off the top of my head, I'd say XML, SOAP and the rise of Linux. Not a bad 5
> years.

Linux started 12 years ago and isn't exactly a product of the software
industry as such. Besides it is a reinvention (more or less) of the 30
year old UNIX. However that IBM and others are playing this card now
is one thing. As to XML I find it to be more hype than buzz and IMHO it
is something which is quite banal. A similar invention in another more
mature industry would probably not been considered a step forward. It is
not easy to compare one industry to another. You can look at industries
like off-shore oil drilling and see how much has happend there the last
30 years, quite a lot actually. Or the fish farming industry the last 10
years. The bio industry etc... The reason why software is considered to
have changed so much is that it has made a huge impact on the lives of
many people, IMHO. But I still have problem seeing that a lot of brand
new things are happening.

-- 
 ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
'||}
{||'                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Georg Bauhaus]

Frank J. Lhota <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net> wrote:
: "Preben Randhol" <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote in message
: news:slrnb69j5t.13o.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
:> What has really happened the last say 5 years in software?
: 
: Off the top of my head, I'd say XML,

That thing has been ISO-standardised in 1986 as SGML,
and is about 30 years old. (Maybe this indicates what
we perceive as new?)

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Georg" == Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> writes:

Georg> That thing has been ISO-standardised in 1986 as SGML, and is
Georg> about 30 years old. (Maybe this indicates what we perceive as
Georg> new?)

This is not quite true. You cannot say if a SGML document is well-formed
if you do not know the associated grammar. SGML has some tags that
don't need a closing counterpart, and also supports implicit closings.

For example, you cannot say whether

  <ul><li>List item<li>Second list item</ul>

is valid in SGML, it depends whether the grammar says that a <li>
closes a preceeding <li> at the same level or not, and whether </ul>
closes embedded <li> or not.

In XML, you have to write explicit closing tags or self-contained tags
such as <br/>. This makes writing parser or transformers much much
easier than their SGML counterpart. There, and only there, lies the
big progress.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Georg Bauhaus]

Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net> wrote:
: For example, you cannot say whether
: 
:  <ul><li>List item<li>Second list item</ul>
: 
: is valid in SGML, it depends whether the grammar says that a <li>
: closes a preceeding <li> at the same level or not, and whether </ul>
: closes embedded <li> or not.

Yes, and if memory serves right, it also requires the SGML declaration in
addition to the DTD, for the parser to known whether or not
element type declarations may say something about tag
omission etc.

Still, XML, being a subset of SGML is not a novelty, which is what
I was trying to say; there is no new concept in it, *but* this doesn't
mean that it shouldn't have been that neglected in the first place :-)

: such as <br/>. This makes writing parser or transformers much much
: easier than their SGML counterpart. There, and only there, lies the
: big progress.

Yes, a progress for parser writers, but not necessarily for human
beings typing markup, or even for people coding of parsing event
handlers?  Computers  should work for humans. (Seems it's often
the other way round.) XML is very useful, but where.

From the perspective of a human, writing DTDs and writing
XML or SGML documents: Using both a sophisticated
validating XML-editor that hides the markup if I want to and two
other editors, wily and Emacs+XAE with SGML; sometimes using the latter is
much more productive, and I'm glad I can use SGML's minimization
features. The outcome is almost pure text; it is a pleasure for the
writer to place a </> end-tag instead of a lengthy </expressiveName>,
when this name is all too obvious from context.
XML can always be produced from SGML input.

And like Ada, SGML is not case sensitive, unless requested.

A similar comment applies to DTDs: writing these can in cases become
really tedious when only the XML subset is allowed; to give just one
example: when  the "and connector" & is disallowed, as it is in the XML
subset, and you want a content model for car choice like

 (color & motor & comfort),

this forces no order where none is needed. XML prohibits this ease of
specification. The absence of & is just introduced to make
the parser writer's life easier.  This is one reason why XML-DTD tools
or XML Schema tools are not only helpful, but they are much needed to
overcome the restrictions of XML in this case. Otherwise you would have to
write

 ((color, motor, comfort) |
  (color, comfort, motor) |
  (motor, comfort, color) |
  (motor, color, comfort) |
  (comfort, color, motor) |
  (comfort, motor, color ))

or similar for the exact same thing. So what can smart XML DTD tools 
do in this case? They can effectively retrofit SGML features onto XML.
:-)

So, from this perspective, the biggest progress is an opportunity
to sell unneded tools to overcome these XML-induced difficulties
(I'm exaggerating a lot, and actually XML is _so_ helpful in data
transport).

-- Georg

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[tmoran]

> Of course, progress takes place in all fields, but I defy you to identify
> another industry where we have seen so many dramatic improvements in such a
> short period of time.
It is indeed wonderful how much has grown from government (tax dollars)
seed money to develop computers, ICs, the Internet, Ada, biotech, ...
I'd also include Unix and C, since they were funded by AT&T, whose money
came from telephone users as mandated by government regulation.  A tax,
in effect.  The benefits of early research, like the benefits of having a
military, and the benefits of much software, are too vulernable to "free
riders" to be adequately funded except by forced taxation.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Ted Dennison]

tmoran@acm.org wrote in message news:<hp69a.314805$iG3.38035@sccrnsc02>...
> It is indeed wonderful how much has grown from government (tax dollars)
> seed money to develop computers, ICs, the Internet, Ada, biotech, ...

Let's not forget the space program, which created the first true need
for smaller computers. More than likely, everone here indirectly owes
their current job and a large portion of thier standard of living to
the US Space program.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Ted" == Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> writes:

Ted> Let's not forget the space program, which created the first true
Ted> need for smaller computers. More than likely, everone here
Ted> indirectly owes their current job and a large portion of thier
Ted> standard of living to the US Space program.

Not only the USA space program:

+ Blaise Pascal invented the first calculating machine to help his
  father -a tax collector- to do his job[1]. So we indirectly owe our
  current job and a large portion of our standard of living to the
  taxes, taxes collector and France (who was collecting taxes and
  paying Blaise Pascal's father to do so).

+ The first digital electronic computer, the ENIAC, was built mainly
  "for military purposes, such as calculating ballistic firing tables
  and designing atomic weapons"[2], so we indirectly owe our current job
  and a large portion of our standard of living to the people who were
  killed by those weapons.

However, it is true that the USA space program sponsored the computer
research industry *a lot*. Noam Chomsky even writes that the main
purpose of the USA space program has been to sponsor private companies
(such as IBM in the past, whose research centers were indirectly
founded by USA tax payers through the USA space program).

  Sam

References:

[1]  http://sol.brunel.ac.uk/history/hist1650.html
[2]  http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story072.htm

-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:40:09 GMT, "Frank J. Lhota"
<NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net> wrote:

>"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
>news:3vo86vk60e69shjgqdbpp6e5pb8qfop3hr@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 03 Mar 2003 15:53:54 GMT, "Frank J. Lhota"
>> <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net> wrote:
>> What does your example show? That technological progress does exist?
>> How does this reveal the efficiency of free (is it?) market for
>> choosing best software and hardware solutions? You have compared old
>> computers with new ones, apples and oranges instead of comparing, for
>> instance, 32- vs. 64-bit processors, Pentium  vs. Alpha, C++ vs. Ada
>> 95. Should you do that, probably, the result would be not so exciting.
>
>Of course, progress takes place in all fields, but I defy you to identify
>another industry where we have seen so many dramatic improvements in such a
>short period of time.

Changes are dramatic, but I would not identify most of them as
improvements. Maybe because there is actually no free market here, it
does not work.

Recent developments look like the evolution of tropical birds on
isolated ocean islands. With no cats present they invest in feather
colors.

>Granted, it is hard to quantify how "exciting" certain
>changes are, but the pace at which these enhancements have been made suggest
>a very efficient market indeed.

I would not be so sure, if we would consider how much was invested in
software and hardware. It would be not a big exaggeration to say that
humankind has in fact dropped space exploration, fusion energy
research to develop ... well, MS-Windows!

---
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Ted Dennison]

Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message news:<gtlb6v88b8s014c1ekunggmeeumaitk4ap@4ax.com>...

> I would not be so sure, if we would consider how much was invested in
> software and hardware. It would be not a big exaggeration to say that
> humankind has in fact dropped space exploration, fusion energy
> research to develop ... well, MS-Windows!

No, it would still be a big exaggeration. Very few of the folk
developing Windows would be capable of working on that other stuff,
and very few of the financial resources used to do it would have been
otherwise available for the things you list (which pretty much require
Government, not private sector, funding).

That's nearly as fallacious as the folks who argue that we shouldn't
sink a single penny into space exploration until we cure the common
cold (or poverty or hunger, or whatever their pet unsolvable social
problem is).

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On 5 Mar 2003 07:39:24 -0800, dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison)
wrote:

>Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message news:<gtlb6v88b8s014c1ekunggmeeumaitk4ap@4ax.com>...
>
>> I would not be so sure, if we would consider how much was invested in
>> software and hardware. It would be not a big exaggeration to say that
>> humankind has in fact dropped space exploration, fusion energy
>> research to develop ... well, MS-Windows!
>
>No, it would still be a big exaggeration. Very few of the folk
>developing Windows would be capable of working on that other stuff,

Does our civilization really need so many programmers? I mean, to
build pyramides one deadly needs a huge amount of workers. But what
for one would build a pyramide? -- to fight unemployment! (:-))

>and very few of the financial resources used to do it would have been
>otherwise available for the things you list (which pretty much require
>Government, not private sector, funding).

True. It is the lack-of-a-threat problem. There would be no landing on
the moon without the Cold War. Only a real threat gives birth to real
solutions. Should the fate of the Free World depend on Programming,
there would be no place for C++ etc. Alas, nobody wants to live in
interesting times. (:-))

>That's nearly as fallacious as the folks who argue that we shouldn't
>sink a single penny into space exploration until we cure the common
>cold (or poverty or hunger, or whatever their pet unsolvable social
>problem is).

---
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Richard Riehle]

"Frank J. Lhota" wrote:

> >   Unfortunately, as this points out in yet another way, the classic Adam
> > Smith free market works very poorly for software.
>
> There is a simple experiment ...

> Try out you old word
> processor, the one that only worked with fixed pitch fonts, and could only
> render a smooth right edge by periodically inserting extra blanks into your
> text.

Actually, one can also look at this from the perspective of productivity.

Those early word processors, with their fixed pitch fonts and limited
formatting capabilities provided a high level of productivity compared
to the more complex word processors of today.  One simply began
typing a manuscript, got it finished and went on to the next one.

One of the worst productivity inhibitors, for word processing, is the
mouse.  In fact, the mouse detracts from productivity in lots of
environments.  We have all observed the typist who, upon making
a simple error in a line of text, stops, reaches for the mouse, highlights
the error, makes the correction, returns to the keyboard and continues
typing.   In a word processor without a mouse, that same typist will
simply backspace over the character, make the correction and move
on.


The plethora of available windows also distracts
the writer from simply writing.   C. Northcote Parkinson,
originator of Parkinson's Law, wrote that  "Work expands to
fill the amount of time available to do it."  In the modern
world of multiple-option windowing environments, we can
rephrase this to, "Work expands to accomodate the number
of features available to do it."

When we design applications such as an order entry system,
we want to limit the availability of windowing options for
the clerk engaged in that activity.  We want to disable a lot
of features, including word processing, unlimited access to
the Internet, and games.   I see designers who still do not
understand this important idea.  We need some input from
industrial engineering practice so we can understand the
nature of productivity once again.

Richard Riehle

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Frank J. Lhota]

"Richard Riehle" <richard@adaworks.com> wrote in message
news:3E64D7DE.512CE499@adaworks.com...
> Actually, one can also look at this from the perspective of productivity.
>
> Those early word processors, with their fixed pitch fonts and limited
> formatting capabilities provided a high level of productivity compared
> to the more complex word processors of today.  One simply began
> typing a manuscript, got it finished and went on to the next one.

I will grant you that if all you want is a simple document with no special
headings, formatting or fonts, then many of the newer features of Word
Processors will not help you much. However, I fail to see how today's word
processors are a performance hinderance for this type of document. What
keeps someone from using MS Word or WordPro or WordPerfect to simply begin
typing a manuscript, get it finished, and going on to the next one?

Of course, if your document is any more complex than this, then there is no
comparison between early and current word processors.

> One of the worst productivity inhibitors, for word processing, is the
> mouse.  In fact, the mouse detracts from productivity in lots of
> environments.  We have all observed the typist who, upon making
> a simple error in a line of text, stops, reaches for the mouse, highlights
> the error, makes the correction, returns to the keyboard and continues
> typing.   In a word processor without a mouse, that same typist will
> simply backspace over the character, make the correction and move
> on.

But haven't we also seen typists who have quickly repositioned the carot by
a mouse click, as opposed to doing a lot of arrow keystrokes?

At any rate, this is a point where we do not need to agree. I find a
pointing device helpful, but you really think that it is slowing you down,
fell free to disconnect your mouse and put it into a drawer until you're
done writing.

> The plethora of available windows also distracts
> the writer from simply writing.   C. Northcote Parkinson,
> originator of Parkinson's Law, wrote that  "Work expands to
> fill the amount of time available to do it."  In the modern
> world of multiple-option windowing environments, we can
> rephrase this to, "Work expands to accomodate the number
> of features available to do it."

Yes, but one of the results is that the quality of documents has improved.
Since document writers are also document readers, this seems like a win-win
situation. But if you still prefer WordStar to current word processors, I
imagine you should be able to find a copy of it on the internet.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Preben Randhol]

Frank J. Lhota wrote:
> 
> Yes, but one of the results is that the quality of documents has improved.

No. Compare a document written in LaTeX with one written in Word and you
will see that the LaTeX document has far better typesetting.

-- 
 ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
'||}
{||'                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

RE: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Robert C. Leif]

Richard is correct; the mouse decreases productivity for both word
processors and spreadsheets. The three big improvements with Windows were
OLE, common device drivers, and TrueType fonts.
Parenthetically, there were 3 products that were clearly superior to their
equivalents in Microsoft Office: FrameWork by Ashton-Tate, Improv by Lotus,
and FrameMaker by Adobe. Of these, only FrameMaker still exists. Although
FrameMaker has the advantages of good numbering, stable paragraph formats,
and image placement, Adobe has made the incredible mistake of basing it on
XML DTDs instead of Schemas. Spreadsheets formulas would become readable if,
as with Improv, the user could create unique names for their columns and
rows. This would also permit spreadsheets to serve as tables in compound
documents.
Bob Leif 

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Riehle [mailto:richard@adaworks.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 8:44 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

"Frank J. Lhota" wrote:

> >   Unfortunately, as this points out in yet another way, the classic Adam
> > Smith free market works very poorly for software.
>
> There is a simple experiment ...

> Try out you old word
> processor, the one that only worked with fixed pitch fonts, and could only
> render a smooth right edge by periodically inserting extra blanks into
your
> text.

Actually, one can also look at this from the perspective of productivity.

Those early word processors, with their fixed pitch fonts and limited
formatting capabilities provided a high level of productivity compared
to the more complex word processors of today.  One simply began
typing a manuscript, got it finished and went on to the next one.

One of the worst productivity inhibitors, for word processing, is the
mouse.  In fact, the mouse detracts from productivity in lots of
environments.  We have all observed the typist who, upon making
a simple error in a line of text, stops, reaches for the mouse, highlights
the error, makes the correction, returns to the keyboard and continues
typing.   In a word processor without a mouse, that same typist will
simply backspace over the character, make the correction and move
on.


The plethora of available windows also distracts
the writer from simply writing.   C. Northcote Parkinson,
originator of Parkinson's Law, wrote that  "Work expands to
fill the amount of time available to do it."  In the modern
world of multiple-option windowing environments, we can
rephrase this to, "Work expands to accomodate the number
of features available to do it."

When we design applications such as an order entry system,
we want to limit the availability of windowing options for
the clerk engaged in that activity.  We want to disable a lot
of features, including word processing, unlimited access to
the Internet, and games.   I see designers who still do not
understand this important idea.  We need some input from
industrial engineering practice so we can understand the
nature of productivity once again.

Richard Riehle

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Georg Bauhaus]

Robert C. Leif <rleif@rleif.com> wrote:
: FrameMaker has the advantages of good numbering, stable paragraph formats,
: and image placement, Adobe has made the incredible mistake of basing it on
: XML DTDs instead of Schemas.

DTDs provide, and have provided for many many year, the most
adequate way of defining a grammar for _text_ with a structure,
and more.  FrameMaker is for text with a structure, and more.

What sort of information would you want to add to what is
possible with "convention-less" DTDs for text? Namespaces? According
to Goldfarb and Prescod the namespace discussion has been going
on for 30 years.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Jason]

"Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<mUK8a.23783$8f7.21516@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
> >   Unfortunately, as this points out in yet another way, the classic Adam
> > Smith free market works very poorly for software.
> 
> There is a simple experiment that can show that the market for software, for
> the most part, works fairly well. Do you have an old PC in your attic? You

<snip>
 
> In my time, I have constantly seen market pressure fuel many hardware and
> software improvements. The companies that failed to make improvements in
> their products have often suffered tremendous falls. (Remember WordStar, the
> MicroPro word processor that once held over half the word processing
> market?) I am not saying that we in the software industry could not do
> better, and I wholehearted agree that software development as it is done
> today needs much better quality assurance techniques. But one cannot deny
> how far we have come. The proof of that is just one attic away.


Getting back to Adam Smith, I always find it interesting when people
invoke his name in discussions because he's often quite misunderstood.
 For example, Smith said very little about corporations in the Wealth
of Nations, and it's hard to have a discussion about the software (or
any modern) market with out the effect of corporations.  I haven't
read it in a while, but as I remember he seemed to think they were
useful in only limited cases and were kind of a fad.  He didn't see
how an artificial paper entity could have the same strong
self-interest that kept individuals competing in the marketplace.

What he didn't get was that corporations distill the self-interest of
thousands of individuals, without the messy moral sentiments that were
so important in his philosophy.  I also think it's interesting how
often the Theory of Moral Sentiments is overlooked by those who preach
Adam Smith this, Adam Smith that.

Anyway, I guess the point I'm getting to is that the involvement of
corporations to such a degree would throw Smith off today.  Someone
above mentioned that economics is a scale with free market at one end
and command at the other.  This is an oversimplification.  For
example, if we go to the far end of free market, with virtually no
government intervention/regulation, I guarantee we'll find more
monopolies and much, much less competition than in a free market with
certain competition-promoting rules.  So if we impose some rules, like
antitrust regulations, labeling laws, etc., are we really moving
toward a command economy?

What does this have to do with software?  Well, the subject does say
"Way OT" ... But really, I just think that we need to recognize that
for better or worse, corporations change all these equations.  This is
part of the reason why, for example, I can't think of a single thing
I've done with Word 2000 on Win 2000 that I couldn't have done with
whatever version I had on Win 3.1 (Word 5, maybe?), and they both seem
to run about as quickly.  But then I was using a 386 40MHz, and now
I've got an Athlon 1400 MHz.  This seems sort of pathetic to me.

It might be possible that had the software industry been a collection
of individuals competing in a completely free market, things would be
different.  Then again, big projects often can't be completed by
individuals.  So we'll never know.  But it is safe to say that
whatever progress has been made in software, it's not really Adam
Smith's free market at work.

RE: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Robert C. Leif]

Web distribution is ideal for a free market. However, the purpose of
advertising is to circumvent a free market. Government intervention often
can create monopolistic conditions. Conversely, if the standards are set by
an organization that does not sell a product, such as government,
competition will be increased.
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason [mailto:pmorrison@4lpi.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:03 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

"Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<mUK8a.23783$8f7.21516@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
> >   Unfortunately, as this points out in yet another way, the classic Adam
> > Smith free market works very poorly for software.
> 
> There is a simple experiment that can show that the market for software,
for
> the most part, works fairly well. Do you have an old PC in your attic? You

<snip>
 
> In my time, I have constantly seen market pressure fuel many hardware and
> software improvements. The companies that failed to make improvements in
> their products have often suffered tremendous falls. (Remember WordStar,
the
> MicroPro word processor that once held over half the word processing
> market?) I am not saying that we in the software industry could not do
> better, and I wholehearted agree that software development as it is done
> today needs much better quality assurance techniques. But one cannot deny
> how far we have come. The proof of that is just one attic away.


Getting back to Adam Smith, I always find it interesting when people
invoke his name in discussions because he's often quite misunderstood.
 For example, Smith said very little about corporations in the Wealth
of Nations, and it's hard to have a discussion about the software (or
any modern) market with out the effect of corporations.  I haven't
read it in a while, but as I remember he seemed to think they were
useful in only limited cases and were kind of a fad.  He didn't see
how an artificial paper entity could have the same strong
self-interest that kept individuals competing in the marketplace.

What he didn't get was that corporations distill the self-interest of
thousands of individuals, without the messy moral sentiments that were
so important in his philosophy.  I also think it's interesting how
often the Theory of Moral Sentiments is overlooked by those who preach
Adam Smith this, Adam Smith that.

Anyway, I guess the point I'm getting to is that the involvement of
corporations to such a degree would throw Smith off today.  Someone
above mentioned that economics is a scale with free market at one end
and command at the other.  This is an oversimplification.  For
example, if we go to the far end of free market, with virtually no
government intervention/regulation, I guarantee we'll find more
monopolies and much, much less competition than in a free market with
certain competition-promoting rules.  So if we impose some rules, like
antitrust regulations, labeling laws, etc., are we really moving
toward a command economy?

What does this have to do with software?  Well, the subject does say
"Way OT" ... But really, I just think that we need to recognize that
for better or worse, corporations change all these equations.  This is
part of the reason why, for example, I can't think of a single thing
I've done with Word 2000 on Win 2000 that I couldn't have done with
whatever version I had on Win 3.1 (Word 5, maybe?), and they both seem
to run about as quickly.  But then I was using a 386 40MHz, and now
I've got an Athlon 1400 MHz.  This seems sort of pathetic to me.

It might be possible that had the software industry been a collection
of individuals competing in a completely free market, things would be
different.  Then again, big projects often can't be completed by
individuals.  So we'll never know.  But it is safe to say that
whatever progress has been made in software, it's not really Adam
Smith's free market at work.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Preben Randhol]

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> Web distribution is ideal for a free market. However, the purpose of
> advertising is to circumvent a free market. Government intervention often
> can create monopolistic conditions. Conversely, if the standards are set by
> an organization that does not sell a product, such as government,
> competition will be increased.

However goverment intervention can also prevent monopolistic/as good as
monopolistic conditions by not allowing big firms to merge as this would
hinder competition.

-- 
 ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
'||}
{||'                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Preben Randhol]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> However goverment intervention can also prevent monopolistic/as good as
> monopolistic conditions by not allowing big firms to merge as this would
> hinder competition.

Oops, I meant to say:

... big firms to merge *when* this would hinder competition.

-- 
 ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
'||}
{||'                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Hyman Rosen]

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> However, the purpose of advertising is to circumvent a free market.

What an odd statement! In a non-free market, of what use is
advertising? On the contrary, advertising is vital in free
markets in order to make potential customers aware of the
benefits of using some product, and perhaps of the disadvantages
of using a different one.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Hyman" == Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:

Hyman> What an odd statement! In a non-free market, of what use is
Hyman> advertising? On the contrary, advertising is vital in free
Hyman> markets in order to make potential customers aware of the
Hyman> benefits of using some product, and perhaps of the
Hyman> disadvantages of using a different one.

This is not what happens today. Most advertisements are trying to
manipulate you in order to reduce your free will.

For example, when you see an attractive person on a display, which has
no link whatsoever with the final product, your unconscious reaction
(as shown by many studies) will be to associate the product or the
brand with a general pleasant feeling (without you knowing why) after
a certain number of repetitions.

When you see a strong and tall cowboy smoking Marlboro cigarettes in
the wild country several times a day, your brain makes a link between
good health, fresh air and Marlboro cigarettes. This reduces your
freedom as it manipulates you into thinking (without telling you
explicitely, which would be illegal) that Marlboro cigarettes make you
a real free healthy tall male.

If you can read French, I suggest you read the excellent book "La
parole manipulée" by Philippe Breton. I am sure that several books
exist in English explaining those methods.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Hyman Rosen]

Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> This is not what happens today. Most advertisements are trying to
> manipulate you in order to reduce your free will.

If that's what they are trying to do, then they have failed.
But of course, it isn't.

> For example, when you see an attractive person on a display, which has
> no link whatsoever with the final product, your unconscious reaction
> (as shown by many studies) will be to associate the product or the
> brand with a general pleasant feeling (without you knowing why) after
> a certain number of repetitions.

It's perfectly valid to buy something because you will feel good or
special for owning it. It's perfectly valid for someone to tell you
that you will feel good or special for owning it.

> When you see a strong and tall cowboy smoking Marlboro cigarettes in
> the wild country several times a day, your brain makes a link between
> good health, fresh air and Marlboro cigarettes. This reduces your
> freedom as it manipulates you into thinking (without telling you
> explicitely, which would be illegal) that Marlboro cigarettes make you
> a real free healthy tall male.
> 
> If you can read French, I suggest you read the excellent book "La
> parole manipul�e" by Philippe Breton. I am sure that several books
> exist in English explaining those methods.

French, huh? I'm not surprised. Anyway, this notion that people are
helpless zombies susceptible to mind control manipulation by cabals
and conspiracies, rather than free-willed and thinking individuals
who take in avalilabale information and then make up their own minds
is a favorite leftish notion, inexorably followed upon by the corollary
that every aspect of life must be regulated to protect people against
these influences.

Anyway, enough of this. I've come a long way, baby, and I deserve a
break today, so I'm going to just do it.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[tmoran]

> free-willed and thinking individuals who take in avalilabale
> information and then make up their own minds
  Clearly Ada is part of the communist plot to take over the world from
that kind of totally knowledgeable, always logical, never make a mistake,
people - who, among other things, can program in C++ without error.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <fffaa.4464$S_4.4485@rwcrnsc53>, tmoran@acm.org writes:
>> free-willed and thinking individuals who take in avalilabale
>> information and then make up their own minds
>   Clearly Ada is part of the communist plot to take over the world from
> that kind of totally knowledgeable, always logical, never make a mistake,
> people - who, among other things, can program in C++ without error.

You mean Vulcans ?

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[tmoran]

> You mean Vulcans ?
"C is for Vulcans, Ada is for Humans"?

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Frank J. Lhota]

> "C is for Vulcans, Ada is for Humans"?

... and Ferengis use Visual Basic.

"Live long and prosper!"

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[tmoran]

> > "C is for Vulcans, Ada is for Humans"?
>
> ... and Ferengis use Visual Basic.
  I can picture the ad:  Two pictures with at the top with captions.  One
shows a dozen Vulcan-looking programmers at clean desks, manuals neatly
stored, prettily indented, readable Ada code on their CRTS, caption "The
programmers you wish you had".  The other picture shows three "hot-shot"
stereotype disheveled programmers at messy desks, one under the desk
sleeping, another being distracted by a poster of an anatomically
improbable female video game figure, and the third with head drooping,
hand holding a can of Jolt.  All three CRTs showing messy looking code
with lots of {[:?( etc.  Caption "The programmers you have".  Under the
two pictures the text says "Let Ada help you get correct, comprehensible
code from merely human programmers."  Then some testimonials:  A citation
of the error rates from the recent Spark Crosstalk article, something
about productivity from the old Rational study (or Pratt & Whitney?), etc.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Hyman Rosen]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:
>>free-willed and thinking individuals who take in avalilabale
>>information and then make up their own minds
> 
>   Clearly Ada is part of the communist plot to take over the world from
> that kind of totally knowledgeable, always logical, never make a mistake,
> people - who, among other things, can program in C++ without error.

On the contrary. Ada first appeared in a non-free market, coercively
forced upon programmers by the U.S. Department of Defense. Had it been
marketed to those programmers, it might have stood a better chance of
success.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Marin David Condic]

Wellll....... Its still a free market, just a very unusual one in which
there are many sellers but only one buyer. (There is actually a word for
that - I heard it once on an NPR show - but I can't remember what it was.
The inverse of a "Monopoly")

(BTW: It is important to note that a "Monopoly" is not a violation of a free
market unless it is a State ordered monopoly. So long as someone is free to
enter the market and compete against a monopoly, its still a market.)

It would have been a "command economy" thing had the government done
something like passing a law saying that "Here is this government produced
compiler and anyone wishing to write software in the U.S.A. must use this
compiler or be fined $10000 and jailed for 90 days...." Sort of like the
"Universal Health Care" thing proposed a while back in a time I wish to
forget. :-) The Ada situation was simply a single customer expressing to its
suppliers what it is they wanted to purchase. The suppliers were free to not
make that product and not do business with that customer. As it turns out,
the suppliers actually acted more coercively against their customer -
forcing the *customer* to accept an alternate product.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:S8Caa.7690$gi1.4716@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
>
> On the contrary. Ada first appeared in a non-free market, coercively
> forced upon programmers by the U.S. Department of Defense. Had it been
> marketed to those programmers, it might have stood a better chance of
> success.
>

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Richard Riehle]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:

> > free-willed and thinking individuals who take in avalilabale
> > information and then make up their own minds
>   Clearly Ada is part of the communist plot to take over the world from
> that kind of totally knowledgeable, always logical, never make a mistake,
> people - who, among other things, can program in C++ without error.

No, Tom.   Ada was a plot by the CIA embedded within the DoD to persuade
the Russians, Chinese, and others that they should devote intellectual energy

to this language so they could understand U.S. military software, even as we
actually developed that software in other, more secret languages which we
never publicized to the public at large.  It was a diversionary tactic
intended
to bring down the Soviet Union, confuse the French,  annoy the British,
amuse the Americans, and amaze the inhabitants of Western Africa.   The
entire plan backfired and it turned out that military software developers
were using it successfully.  This called for yet another plan, promoted by
a different super-secret agency:  abrogate the mandate to deceive the
world into believing we were going yet another direction.

Even comp.lang.ada is a conspiracy by nefarious people with unlikely,
and obviously fictitious names such as Dewar, Hermann, Brosgol,
Riehle, Condic, Lief,  Randol,  etc.   If one examines these names carefully,

along with others often found in this forum, and arranges them in the
correct order, it will be discovered that each of these names, when
mulitplied by the ASCII values of the word Moran, is a secret code
devised by interplanetary visitors who intend to conquer the planet.

Now, I must send this message quickly because those Alien creatures
have learned that I have discovered their secret and are about to beam
me into the spaceship hovering nearby over my flower garden.

Goodbye all.

Richard Riehle

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Jeffrey Creem]

"Richard Riehle" <richard@adaworks.com> wrote in message
news:3E6B8804.35FBC08F@adaworks.com...
> tmoran@acm.org wrote:
> Now, I must send this message quickly because those Alien creatures
> have learned that I have discovered their secret and are about to beam
> me into the spaceship hovering nearby over my flower garden.
>
> Goodbye all.
>
> Richard Riehle
>


That's it...We are coming for you. You are just lucky you did not slip up
and talk about the most dangerous worm known so far which has been
responsible for more lost productivity then the combined sum of all the
rest...Windows Solitaire

RE: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Robert C. Leif]

It is spelled Leif.
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Riehle [mailto:richard@adaworks.com] 
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 10:29 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

tmoran@acm.org wrote:

> > free-willed and thinking individuals who take in avalilabale
> > information and then make up their own minds
>   Clearly Ada is part of the communist plot to take over the world from
> that kind of totally knowledgeable, always logical, never make a mistake,
> people - who, among other things, can program in C++ without error.

No, Tom.   Ada was a plot by the CIA embedded within the DoD to persuade
the Russians, Chinese, and others that they should devote intellectual
energy

to this language so they could understand U.S. military software, even as we
actually developed that software in other, more secret languages which we
never publicized to the public at large.  It was a diversionary tactic
intended
to bring down the Soviet Union, confuse the French,  annoy the British,
amuse the Americans, and amaze the inhabitants of Western Africa.   The
entire plan backfired and it turned out that military software developers
were using it successfully.  This called for yet another plan, promoted by
a different super-secret agency:  abrogate the mandate to deceive the
world into believing we were going yet another direction.

Even comp.lang.ada is a conspiracy by nefarious people with unlikely,
and obviously fictitious names such as Dewar, Hermann, Brosgol,
Riehle, Condic, Lief,  Randol,  etc.   If one examines these names
carefully,

along with others often found in this forum, and arranges them in the
correct order, it will be discovered that each of these names, when
mulitplied by the ASCII values of the word Moran, is a secret code
devised by interplanetary visitors who intend to conquer the planet.

Now, I must send this message quickly because those Alien creatures
have learned that I have discovered their secret and are about to beam
me into the spaceship hovering nearby over my flower garden.

Goodbye all.

Richard Riehle

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Richard Riehle]

"Robert C. Leif" wrote:

> It is spelled Leif.
> Bob Leif

Well, I was  referrring to Horatio Ishkabbible Lief, not to Dr. Robert Leif.

When one uses Leif instead of Lief, the computations I mentioned don't
reveal the true depth of the conspiracy.  :-)

Richard Riehle

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Marin David Condic]

Aren't you really just an artificial intelligence program written for
someone's doctoral dissertation?

The "Real" Marin Condic

--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com> wrote in message
news:3E6B8804.35FBC08F@adaworks.com...
>
> No, Tom.   Ada was a plot by the CIA embedded within the DoD to persuade
> the Russians, Chinese, and others that they should devote intellectual
energy
>
> to this language so they could understand U.S. military software, even as
we
> actually developed that software in other, more secret languages which we
> never publicized to the public at large.  It was a diversionary tactic
> intended
> to bring down the Soviet Union, confuse the French,  annoy the British,
> amuse the Americans, and amaze the inhabitants of Western Africa.   The
> entire plan backfired and it turned out that military software developers
> were using it successfully.  This called for yet another plan, promoted by
> a different super-secret agency:  abrogate the mandate to deceive the
> world into believing we were going yet another direction.
>
> Even comp.lang.ada is a conspiracy by nefarious people with unlikely,
> and obviously fictitious names such as Dewar, Hermann, Brosgol,
> Riehle, Condic, Lief,  Randol,  etc.   If one examines these names
carefully,
>
> along with others often found in this forum, and arranges them in the
> correct order, it will be discovered that each of these names, when
> mulitplied by the ASCII values of the word Moran, is a secret code
> devised by interplanetary visitors who intend to conquer the planet.
>
> Now, I must send this message quickly because those Alien creatures
> have learned that I have discovered their secret and are about to beam
> me into the spaceship hovering nearby over my flower garden.
>
> Goodbye all.
>
> Richard Riehle
>
>
>

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Georg Bauhaus]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
:  Anyway, this notion that people are
: helpless zombies susceptible to mind control manipulation by cabals
: and conspiracies, rather than free-willed and thinking individuals
: who take in avalilabale information and then make up their own minds
: is a favorite leftish notion,

Why is it that programmers known to be careful abandon careful
analysis when it comes to "social matters"?
This sentence doesn't exclude that it might as well be
a conservative ethologist's favourite notion.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Hyman Rosen]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> This sentence doesn't exclude that it might as well be
> a conservative ethologist's favourite notion.

Well, I'm displaying my own personal prejudices, of course.

Personal anecdote: In my son's pre-school, they have the
philosophy that kids should be left to do what they feel
like doing, whether or not the rest of the class is involved
in some group activity. I was listening to NPR, where someone
was explaining that self-directed retirement plans are bad,
because people aren't smart enough to plan their own savings,
but must have the government do it for them. Somehow, that
to me seems the quintessence of liberalism - three-year-olds
get to direct their own education, while adults need the nanny!

Charles Krauthammer said that to truly understand American
politics, you must realize that conservatives think liberals
are idiots, and liberals think conservatives are evil. I think
both sides are correct.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Preben Randhol]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> Personal anecdote: In my son's pre-school, they have the
> philosophy that kids should be left to do what they feel
> like doing, whether or not the rest of the class is involved
> in some group activity. I was listening to NPR, where someone

I saw a program from England where they let some ten (I think) 11-13
year olds live in a house for a weekend while they filmed what they did.
They were themselves in charge of cooking etc. They totally trashed the
place. Not one piece of furniture or toy was intact after.

> Charles Krauthammer said that to truly understand American
> politics, you must realize that conservatives think liberals
> are idiots, and liberals think conservatives are evil. I think
> both sides are correct.

And the role Christianity plays in all of this as well. 

Funny I just saw a program from Frontline about the current
administration and the behind the scenes concerning Iraq. On one side
you have Rumsfeld (conservative, hauke according to the program) and
Powell (pragmatist, ditto) on the other.

-- 
  ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
 +||-.
.+--+'
'+||-                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Georg Bauhaus]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
: Charles Krauthammer said that to truly understand American
: politics, you must realize that conservatives think liberals
: are idiots, and liberals think conservatives are evil. I think
: both sides are correct.

A multi-way instance of Russel's paradox :-)

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Stanley R. Allen]

Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> 
> If you can read French, I suggest you read the excellent book "La
> parole manipul�e" by Philippe Breton. I am sure that several books
> exist in English explaining those methods.

Cf, "The Hidden Persuaders" by Vance Packard.

-- 
Stanley Allen
mailto:Stanley_R_Allen@Raytheon.com

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Stanley" == Stanley R Allen <u384k@gsde.hou.us.ray.com> writes:

Stanley> Cf, "The Hidden Persuaders" by Vance Packard.

Thank you for the link. Incidentally, Vance Packard is heavily quoted
in Philippe Breton's book.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Hyman Rosen]

Stanley R. Allen wrote:
> Cf, "The Hidden Persuaders" by Vance Packard.

Wasn't he the "naked woman in the ice cubes" guy?
Amusingly, a liquor company is now using this in their ads -
"Some people see a naked woman in these ice cubes - others
just see [some variation on 'our wonderful beverage']".

Subliminal advertising works about as well as hypnosis
and telepathy, which is to say, not at all.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Jason]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message news:<1047052877.215272@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>...
> Stanley R. Allen wrote:
> > Cf, "The Hidden Persuaders" by Vance Packard.
> 
> Wasn't he the "naked woman in the ice cubes" guy?
> Amusingly, a liquor company is now using this in their ads -
> "Some people see a naked woman in these ice cubes - others
> just see [some variation on 'our wonderful beverage']".
> 
> Subliminal advertising works about as well as hypnosis
> and telepathy, which is to say, not at all.

I don't know about telepathy, but hypnosis really does "work". 
Granted, it doesn't really work the way they show in the movies, but
pick up a psych 101 textbook if you don't believe me.

As for advertising...  let me pose a hypothetical question.  Let's
say, hypothetically, that there is a company that has its product, say
a soft drink, in every country on the planet.  Now let's suppose that
the 6 billion humans on this planet already consume 1 billion drinks
of their each day.  If advertising does not influence the choices that
people make, then why on earth would this same company spend billions
of dollars on advertising?  It isn't very likely that this
"advertising is vital in free markets in order to make potential
customers aware of the benefits of using some product, and perhaps of
the disadvantages of using a different one."  I can't imagine there is
single person on this planet that is unaware of Coca Cola (oops, let
it slip).

The major point of advertising, at least in recent history, is to
influence people's decisions.  If this is impossible, all the richest,
most successful companies are deluding themselves.  I agree that
people aren't mindless zombies who only eat/drink/wear/buy what they
are told, but there are understood psychological methods for
influencing behavior.  You're right, subliminal advertising, in terms
of secret messages between frames or hidden nudity, doesn't work.

I for one would like to see more substantive advertising (this product
is better because of these points) and less associative advertising
(watch this hot chick drink this product).  But if you watch TV or
read a magazine for a half hour, I think you'll see which is deemed
more successful by companies.  There's not much I can do about it if I
want strong free speech.

Still, saying advertising doesn't and isn't intended to influence
behavior is sticking your head in the ground.  The real solution is
for consumers to be much more critical (and self-ware) of what is
presented to them.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Hyman Rosen]

Jason wrote:
> I don't know about telepathy, but hypnosis really does "work". 
> Granted, it doesn't really work the way they show in the movies, but
> pick up a psych 101 textbook if you don't believe me.

Have you *seen* what's in psych textbooks? Psychology has come up
with more crackpot notions of what goes on in a human mind than
you can shake a stick at.

 > If advertising does not influence the choices that people make

Well, *of course* advertising influences the choices that people
make, or else what would be the point? The reason even makers of
ubiquitous products advertise is that there's a free market. If
you don't advertise, and your competitors do, pretty soon you will
lose your market share because your customers will forget you.

It's just that this influence isn't "reducing your free will".
Advertisers try to appeal to people in a variety of different
ways, engaging both reason and emotion. Those who find hidden
messages are saying more about themselves than about the ads.

> I for one would like to see more substantive advertising (this product
> is better because of these points) and less associative advertising
> (watch this hot chick drink this product).

I for one would much rather watch hot chicks than see a
dissertation on why the bite of Coca Cola is tastier than
the sweetness of Pepsi. Fortunately for me, so do lots of
other people :-)

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Georg Bauhaus]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
: Jason wrote:
:> I don't know about telepathy, but hypnosis really does "work". 
:> Granted, it doesn't really work the way they show in the movies, but
:> pick up a psych 101 textbook if you don't believe me.
: 
: Have you *seen* what's in psych textbooks? Psychology has come up
: with more crackpot notions of what goes on in a human mind than
: you can shake a stick at.

So what? computer science has come up with more and more programming
languages...

: It's just that this influence isn't "reducing your free will".

Lets say it is about presenting a product in a way such that
those who make the decisions will consider buying the product.
I don't know whether "fairies' dust" is the right translation
for an ad by IBM that is running on several TV channels over
here, but what does fairies' dust have to do with a hardware/
software combination? (Dust puppies aside.)
Does it offer information to your free conscious will to buy
the right product?

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Richard Riehle]

> : Jason wrote:
> :
> : Have you *seen* what's in psych textbooks? Psychology has come up
> : with more crackpot notions of what goes on in a human mind than
> : you can shake a stick at.

Is the last phrase a Freudian slip?   Or is it a Jungian icon?   There
is certainly a subtle psychological meaning below the surface.  In
fact, the shaking of the stick might indicate that Jason is a latent
serial killer.   Or, perhaps he is a latent dowser in search of water.

Richard Riehle

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Preben Randhol]

Richard Riehle wrote:
>> : Jason wrote:
>> :
>> : Have you *seen* what's in psych textbooks? Psychology has come up
>> : with more crackpot notions of what goes on in a human mind than
>> : you can shake a stick at.
> 
> Is the last phrase a Freudian slip?   Or is it a Jungian icon?   There
> is certainly a subtle psychological meaning below the surface.  In
> fact, the shaking of the stick might indicate that Jason is a latent
> serial killer.   Or, perhaps he is a latent dowser in search of water.

As far as I recall Jason did not write that you refer to above.

-- 
  ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
 +||-.
.+--+'
'+||-                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Hyman Rosen]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> So what?

So the presence of something in a psych textbook doesn't
make it real.

> Does it offer information to your free conscious will to buy
> the right product?

Yes. For a definition of "right" that they have, and hope
you will accept. The merits of a product are very much in
the eye of the beholder. If IBM's commercial makes you
believe that their products are superior because of the
well-known technological prowess of the company (which is
what "fairy dust" would imply to me), who are you to say
that such an approach is invalid, or subconscious?

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[David Thompson]

Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote :
> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
...
> : It's just that this influence isn't "reducing your free will".
>
> Lets say it is about presenting a product in a way such that
> those who make the decisions will consider buying the product.
> I don't know whether "fairies' dust" is the right translation
> for an ad by IBM that is running on several TV channels over
> here, but what does fairies' dust have to do with a hardware/
> software combination? (Dust puppies aside.)

It's "pixie dust" in the English (US) version, but "fairy dust"
has almost exactly the same meaning.

But it's a joke!  Watch to the end; their *point* is that
"there is no (such) (magic) pixie dust -- *instead* we have
and offer blah blah servers built to be reliable blah blah".
It's actually funny enough I could bear to watch it through
the first several (> 1) times, unusual for massmarket ads;
although of course after they continued running it many
times per day for weeks it quickly became tired.

They have several other ads in the same style; one featured
a "business reality detector", kind of a magic lie detector,
which also doesn't exist but is used as a lead-in to something
they do really have, I think it was project consulting or such.

> Does it offer information to your free conscious will to buy
> the right product?

It doesn't offer much real information -- you can't do that in
thirty seconds on TV anyway -- but it does state honestly
if humorously a claim that you can choose consciously
whether you want to investigate further.

--
- David.Thompson 1 now at worldnet.att.net

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[tmoran]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
> Have you *seen* what's in psych textbooks? Psychology has come up
> with more crackpot notions of what goes on in a human mind than
> you can shake a stick at.
   So you don't believe in subliminal suggestion or other experimental
observations?  I suppose observational evidence in favor of one computer
language over another should also be ignored.  Sheeeesh.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Frank J. Lhota]

<tmoran@acm.org> wrote in message news:%UBba.57202$qi4.39112@rwcrnsc54...
> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
>    So you don't believe in subliminal suggestion or other experimental
> observations?  I suppose observational evidence in favor of one computer
> language over another should also be ignored.  Sheeeesh.

What experimental observations? Keyes may have written some very
entertaining books, but he is not a Psychologist, or a scientist of any kind
for that matter. Keyes has yet to perform a rigorous, controlled, double
blind experiment to test his theories. Others have properly tested the
"Subliminal Seduction" theories, and the results have been consistently
negative.

For example, there is the conjecture that the unconscious mind can read a
text message flashed on a movie or television screen for such a brief period
of time that the conscious mind will not detect it. Presumably, this theory
was proved when a movie theater in Pasadena CA flashed the words "Eat
Popcorn" on their screen, and found that their popcorn sales tripled. Or was
that theater in Niagara Falls NY? Or was the message "Drink Coke"? I have
heard this and other variations of the story. We're dealing with an urban
legend here. There are serious questions as whether this event ever
happened, much less whether this is a valid experiment.

There are ways to perform a double blind experiment to test this conjecture.
For example, you could make two prints of a film, one with the quick flash
message, and one without the message. You show the two prints to two
separate audiences, and measure the audience responses to see if the message
had any effect. Neither the audiences nor those making the measurements
should know which print has the hidden message.

This double blind experiment has been done, and the results were that the
behavior of the audience that saw the hidden message did not differ
significantly from the control audience. It appears that when a messages is
too quick for the conscious mind to read, it is also too quick for the
unconscious mind. I should also point out that modern Psychology has moved
away from the whole conscious / unconscious dichotomy.

In matters or pseudo science and cranks, I usually refer people to the web
site of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal (CSICOP). Their URL is http://www.csicop.org. They have debunked
Brian Wilson Keyes and his "Subliminal Seduction" ideas in the past, but
that was several years ago, and unfortunately they don't have any Keyes
items on the site right now.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Hyman Rosen]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:
>    So you don't believe in subliminal suggestion or
 > other experimental observations? Sheeeesh.

I'm not aware of any high-quality evidence that exists
for the efficacy of subliminal suggestion, that's all.

It's my personal prejudice that most "experimental"
results in psychology have qustionable statistics,
questionable reasoning, and questionable conclusions,
and reveal more about the biases of the experimenters
than about the subjects.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[tmoran]

> It's my personal prejudice that most "experimental"
  "Subliminal suggestion" means more than getting people to eat more
popcorn by flashing signs.  The evidence for suggestibility, and influence
of things not consciously noticed, is overwhelming.  You are of course
welcome to willful ignorance and disbelief of evidence on any topic you
choose, so long as your belief's don't hurt others.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Hyman Rosen]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:
> You are of course welcome to willful ignorance and disbelief of  evidence
 > on any topic you choose, so long as your belief's don't hurt others.

Actually, I am welcome to those even if my beliefs do hurt others.
And I donate money to groups like FIRE <http://www.thefire.org> to
make sure that it stays that way.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Jason]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message news:<1047485385.47345@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>...
> tmoran@acm.org wrote:
> >    So you don't believe in subliminal suggestion or
>  > other experimental observations? Sheeeesh.
> 
> I'm not aware of any high-quality evidence that exists
> for the efficacy of subliminal suggestion, that's all.
> 
> It's my personal prejudice that most "experimental"
> results in psychology have qustionable statistics,
> questionable reasoning, and questionable conclusions,
> and reveal more about the biases of the experimenters
> than about the subjects.

That's quite a prejudice.

If by "questionable," you mean "should be studied further, examined,
retested" I wholeheartedly agree, and I think most psych professors
would too.  If instead you mean, "should be ignored," welcome to the
world of my grandmother, who "doesn't have any use for" genetics.

If you want a good example of an interesting modern psych experiment,
look up the disinformation effect.  Basically, subjects witness an
event (like a car running a stop sign) and come back a few days later
to take a test on what they saw.  When asked certain questions, like
"was the traffic light red?" they will often respond yes, and then if
asked later "was there a traffic light or a stop sign?" they will
become convinced it was a traffic light after all.

This experiment has been done a number of times and there are lots of
grad students constantly trying to poke holes in it or find new
variables to control.  And, it's pretty interesting in terms of how we
know what we know and how our memories work (and don't work). 
Moreover, it's interesting in terms of how people can be influenced
without their knowledge.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Hyman Rosen]

Jason wrote:
> That's quite a prejudice.

Here's a good example:
<http://drkoop.com/template.asp?page=newsdetail&ap=93&id=512091>

They make the classic logical fallacy of confusing correlation
with causation. The results are being trumpeted by people who
have been grinding this particular axe for decades. And there
are expansive claims made that are not supported by any evidence.

RE: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Robert C. Leif]

Ada is much a better language than Java. Java succeeded in the commercial
market because of Sun's excellent marketing including advertising. End of
argument.
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason [mailto:pmorrison@4lpi.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:35 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<1047052877.215272@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>...
> Stanley R. Allen wrote:
> > Cf, "The Hidden Persuaders" by Vance Packard.
> 
> Wasn't he the "naked woman in the ice cubes" guy?
> Amusingly, a liquor company is now using this in their ads -
> "Some people see a naked woman in these ice cubes - others
> just see [some variation on 'our wonderful beverage']".
> 
> Subliminal advertising works about as well as hypnosis
> and telepathy, which is to say, not at all.

I don't know about telepathy, but hypnosis really does "work". 
Granted, it doesn't really work the way they show in the movies, but
pick up a psych 101 textbook if you don't believe me.

As for advertising...  let me pose a hypothetical question.  Let's
say, hypothetically, that there is a company that has its product, say
a soft drink, in every country on the planet.  Now let's suppose that
the 6 billion humans on this planet already consume 1 billion drinks
of their each day.  If advertising does not influence the choices that
people make, then why on earth would this same company spend billions
of dollars on advertising?  It isn't very likely that this
"advertising is vital in free markets in order to make potential
customers aware of the benefits of using some product, and perhaps of
the disadvantages of using a different one."  I can't imagine there is
single person on this planet that is unaware of Coca Cola (oops, let
it slip).

The major point of advertising, at least in recent history, is to
influence people's decisions.  If this is impossible, all the richest,
most successful companies are deluding themselves.  I agree that
people aren't mindless zombies who only eat/drink/wear/buy what they
are told, but there are understood psychological methods for
influencing behavior.  You're right, subliminal advertising, in terms
of secret messages between frames or hidden nudity, doesn't work.

I for one would like to see more substantive advertising (this product
is better because of these points) and less associative advertising
(watch this hot chick drink this product).  But if you watch TV or
read a magazine for a half hour, I think you'll see which is deemed
more successful by companies.  There's not much I can do about it if I
want strong free speech.

Still, saying advertising doesn't and isn't intended to influence
behavior is sticking your head in the ground.  The real solution is
for consumers to be much more critical (and self-ware) of what is
presented to them.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Hyman Rosen]

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> Ada is much a better language than Java. Java succeeded in the commercial
> market because of Sun's excellent marketing including advertising. End of
> argument.

They also caught the OO wave at the right time. And it looks like C
instead of Pascal, which I still think is a major reason for Ada's
failure.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Frank J. Lhota]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1047052877.215272@master.nyc.kbcfp.com...
> Stanley R. Allen wrote:
> > Cf, "The Hidden Persuaders" by Vance Packard.
>
> Wasn't he the "naked woman in the ice cubes" guy?

You're thinking of Wilson Bryan Keyes. He's the one who contends that every
Ritz cracker has the word 'Sex' etched on it 24 times. Mr. Keyes also
contends that Howard Johnson's arrange their fried clams to suggest a
subliminal orgy. Also, Playboy centerfolds have hidden sexual images that
enhance their popularity. (You mean their popularity is not due to their
EXPLICIT sexuality?)

Wilson Keyes did generate some serious discussion, but nowadays he is taken
even less seriously than Vance Packard.

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Stanley R. Allen]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Stanley R. Allen wrote:
>> Cf, "The Hidden Persuaders" by Vance Packard.
> 
> Wasn't he the "naked woman in the ice cubes" guy?

No.  Packard was a 'pop' sociologist and pushed no personal pet
theories like Wilson Key.  Packard's book just reports, in a popular
format, about the work of marketers who use 'depth' (psychological)
techniques.

> Subliminal advertising works about as well as hypnosis
> and telepathy, which is to say, not at all.

Huh?  Hypnosis doesn't work?  Telepathy and hypnosis should
not considered together as if they were similar things.

Subliminal advertising was over-sold but it looks to have
some basis in reality, and where it works it does so on
the same principle as hypnosis -- suggestibility.  You can
think of any modern, sophisticated advertising effort (such as
the cascading collection of Budweiser ads that are sprinkled
through the various sporting events on TV) as an experiment
on a broad range of levels of human consciousness.  There are a
number of stages of awareness and "subliminality" just refers
the lowest levels.  There is no magic to it, just like there is
no voodoo associated with the idea of "the unconscious".  It
just means that sometimes we are not aware of some things,
including our own motivations.

The result of the ad experiment is measured as the cash the public
spends on the product.  Their goal is to make the selling and buying
processes as unobtrusive as possible so that people simply don't
notice being persuaded or purchasing (or even consuming!) the product.
To a large extent they've succeeded.  It's the triumph of science to
conquer nature, and the science of marketing targets human nature.

The last frame of this 'toon says it all:
http://www240.pair.com/tomtom/media/arc/1993%20archive/93-04-27-advertising.gif

BTW, budweiser and coca cola seem to have succeeded at a special
kind of sub- or un-conscious marketing that directly relates to
the success of languages like C and C++ -- cultural ubiquity.
The assumptions that people make about their circumambient
situation remain for the most part unexamined.  So it's not a
surprise that programming languages are chosen without much
analysis -- whatever is provided as the norm is tacitly accepted.

-- 
Stanley Allen
mailto:Stanley_R_Allen@Raytheon.com

Re: Way OT: Adam Smith and Software Markets

[Hyman Rosen]

Stanley R. Allen wrote:
> BTW, budweiser and coca cola seem to have succeeded at a special
> kind of sub- or un-conscious marketing that directly relates to
> the success of languages like C and C++ -- cultural ubiquity.
> The assumptions that people make about their circumambient
> situation remain for the most part unexamined.  So it's not a
> surprise that programming languages are chosen without much
> analysis -- whatever is provided as the norm is tacitly accepted.

These same large companies also own a variety of "boutique" beverages
which are marketed as if they are independently owned, to those people
who fancy themselves free-thinking iconoclasts. Rather like Ada, which
after all was brought to you by the U.S. Department of Defense.