Re: Ada generics are bad

[matthew_heaney@acm.org (Matthew Heaney)]

In article <6gs5qa$s46@newshub.atmnet.net>, cgreen@yosemite.atc.com
(Christopher Green) wrote:

>>This could be used to "solve" the "problem" of releasing more source code
>>than you absolutely have to, although from a users point of view, using
>>libraries where you do not have the source and do not know what is going
>>on seems pretty dubious. I suppose if the only option you have is to use
>>closed software of this kind, then the risk may be acceptable. 
>
>Such closed software is standard (though far from universal) practice in 
>the commercial "C" world.  
>
>Whether it is desirable is a different question entirely:  from the de-
>veloper's point of view, the more control retained over the source, the
>better; from the user's point of view, the more access to the source, the
>better.  The marketplace has a way of forcing sellers and buyers to reach
>reasonable compromises.

I for one am tired of being held hostage by "developers who retain control
over the source."  If there's a problem, and I have the source, then at
least I can fix it; otherwise, I'm SOL.

This attitude of a developer "needing to retain control of source" is only
a sign that the developer has no other resource to control, such as a
software development process.  It's a desperate attempt to conceal the fact
that he barely knows what he is doing.

Claiming that the "marketplace" forces sellers and buyers to reach
"reasonable compromises" is a specious argument.  All you're doing is
trying to avoid taking personal responsibility for a choice YOU have made,
by blaming the "marketplace."  If you keep source closed, it is because you
decided to, not because the marketplace, God, the Easter Bunny, or anybody
else made you.

Somehow, when I buy a car, Toyota sells me...a car!  And when a buy a
microwave oven, Sears sells me...a microwave oven!  How do Toyota and Sears
even manage to stay in business at all, giving away all that technology
that the world can see and copy?

Here's a hint: a mature software development shop owns a process, not
software.  Software is merely the output of the process.  Just like the
manufacturing line at Toyota.  Or Sony. Or Motorola. Or any other
manufacturer of material goods.

Motorola's asset isn't CPU cards, it's a six-sigma process.  Imagine that,
letting me see the actual hardware inside my Mac!  But heaven forbid anyone
should get a look at my source code!

Retaining control of source does not bode well for the developer's ability
to write any other software, and customers are admonished to stay away when
they have the choice.  And let me tell you, there are many programmers out
there who make it their business to see that consumers of software do have
that choice.

If you persist in this anachronistic idea that it's better for the
developer to "retain control" of source, then you only prevent yourself
from improving your ability to develop any software at all.

Suppose we take a little unscientific survey of comp.lang.ada readers: Who
do you think has the more mature process: the Advanced Technology Center,
or Ada Core Technologies?  If you had a choice in buying software from ATC
or ACT, one of whom (ATC) said the source was closed, and the other (ACT)
open, from whom would you buy?

Or compare Microsoft and the Free Software Foundation.  Who would you
rather write software for you: Bill Gates, or Richard Stallman?

The software world is changing, Chris.  Why not change with it?