Re: GNAT GPL is not shareware

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

"Jedi Tek'Unum" <jeditekunum@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:6950687c-7b03-440e-ba15-e1092f86a3d0@googlegroups.com...
> On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 2:15:34 PM UTC-6, Randy Brukardt wrote:
...
>> having a vibrant array of choices in both programming languages and
>> implementations thereof, you really only have one choice for each 
>> (dressed
>> up in different packages, but the same thing underlying).
>
> There are many proprietary (or non-GCC) C/C++ compilers. Every system 
> vendor
> has one.

Right. But...

...
>> Plenty of other professional languages "are held hostage", because they
>> don't even exist (at least in any usable form). There is no way to get 
>> them
>> built, because there is no hope of making any money on them. All one gets 
>> is
>
> So here we are 30+ years since Ada was created and 20+ years since GNAT
> was created. An ISO standard language. Still fractured (3 different
> levels - FSF/GPL/Pro) and still huge platform availability barriers.

Now you're complaining that there is *too* much choice in Ada. That's weird, 
Linux doesn't seem to have a problem with too much "fracturing" (Ubuntu, 
Debian, Red Hat, ad nausum...). Nor with platform availability (during most 
of its history, it was only practically available on x86). Not much 
difference between Linux and GNAT on that.

If Ada has a problem, it's that the alternative implementations are weak 
(and expensive in most cases). A truly vibrant community has lots of 
implementations (there were over 80 implementations of Ada 83). And the 
existence of strong standards and a test suite everyone agreed upon meant 
(and still does) that changing implementations is relatively painless 
compared to other languages.

> Ada is not going to grow until that is fixed. Ada has to become a tool
> that is used to make money, not the money maker itself. Linux seems
> to survive that way.
>
> As long as the predominate maker of Ada technology refuses to enter
> the 21st century then Ada is hostage.

Can't even imagine what you mean by this. Ada, as tool, will never make as 
much money as less professional languages. That's because you can't sell 
ongoing maintance to fix software that works right (and thus doesn't need to 
be fixed). Thus, there is very little advantage to using Ada as a contractor 
who makes a living creating software for others. Ada's real advantage is 
within a vertically integrated company - where lower maintance cost is 
actually as saving. But such an organization provides no opportunities for 
the tools creator - they'll use the lowest cost stuff that they can find 
that does the job; and moreover, if they're truly into saving money, they're 
unlikely to spend a lot of money on creating tools, and if they do they'll 
keep them in house. The people who can make money at this have to build 
things that need a lot of fixing (and some lock-in), and Ada programs aren't 
(usually) in that category.

AdaCore is doing the only thing that makes sense to monitize Ada. If there 
was any other way that made sense, my guess is that AdaCore would have tried 
it already.

Sadly, I don't think there is much future for doing things well, because for 
that one can neither sell maintenance nor get much effort for improvement. 
Which ultimately leads to a bleak future for humanity, IMHO.

                                           Randy.