From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1116ece181be1aea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-15 05:30:45 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:38:35 +0200 Message-ID: References: <9keolvs9tjbbbuv1ndnsr69af7mtddemhk@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.111) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1063629044 26619840 212.79.194.111 (16 [77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42519 Date: 2003-09-15T14:38:35+02:00 List-Id: On 12 Sep 2003 11:55:50 -0700, aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander Kopilovitch) wrote: >> >And Mars do not pose an immediate threat. >> >> Enron, Worldcom, Deutsche Telecom, uncounted DOT-COM companies; > >Do you see anything unusual in all that? Not at all. >Generally, world/civilization recently entered into new major stage of global >technological trasformation (the most visible part of which is certainly >Internet with all its direct consequences, but there are other, no less >significant technological changes), and it would be far too stupid to expect >that such a major system transformation will proceed smoothly everywhere >at the micro-level (where we live -;). It cannot especially, because an overwhelming despise to science and knowledge. Look at the picture of a scientist in Hollywood films and cartoons! The major problem of bad management is a lack of any desire to hear opinons which differs from your own. >> Mission critical software in Visual Basic; > >I must confess that I'm sick and tired of those words "mission critical". >What a mission? One of the program. > For which or for whom it is critical? Is it a calculation >of optimal credit policy for some bank? Ah, perhaps you will say that you >mean medical equipment. so which part of it and for which particular purposes >it serve? As you mention Visual Basic then probably it runs under Windows - >so what you have against Visual Basic if you run Windows - do you think that >Visual Basic is less safe/reliable than average part of Windows machinery? These are two sides of the same coin. >Probably you associate incompetent programming with Visual Basic, but most >probably you only guess that is the case, an do not know the actual >programmer's skills. Imagine that you are offered lucrative contract, which >you think you can easily done... but it is non-negotiable requirement that >all must be done in Visual Basic. Will you reject that offer? Or, if you >accept it, will you develop bad/unsafe/unreliable software, excusing yourself >by inherent inferiority of Visual Basic? This is the situation we usually have. The question is why these requirements are considered absolute? Who are those decided that Windows and Basic has to be there? Why they decided so. If you dig just a bit deeper you will find that in 90% cases these decisions are absolutely ungrounded and caused by sheer incompetence. It could be no problem if and only if the people having the right to impose non-negotiable requirements would be also resposible for all consequences of that. Unfortunately, it is others who are paying for this. >> even NASA have admitted >> problems with management. Isn't that a threat? > >On the contrary, I was pleasantly surprised with some formulations in the >investigation board's report. You know, while your investigation facilities >are generally healthy, your cause isn't lost beyond repair. True, but also think about those lost lives. >> In most cases they do want a real and necessary thing. > >Perhaps, but still very often they can't describe that real and necessary >thing adequately. They even often have no firm understanding what they want: >they surely understand their *problem*, but not a solution. In other words, >they have good "negative" understanding, but not a "positive" one. > >> And they want this thing for less money and yesterday. > >It always been (and will be) so. Just because they are elements of the market, >and play their roles in the game. > >> For what ever reason, they >> are convinced that a funny technology X will save the money and time. > >They aren't convinced in anything of that sort. Don't keep them so stupid. >They just are keeping the current fashion when they have no special arguments >in their terms), which justify anothey way. Call it so if you want, but the result is same. They are not ready and not willing to have any techincal discussion. As you said, the requirements are non-negotiable. >> So either you have to come with this technology, or to present >> something already working in a way they understand as "working". The >> best way to do both. >> >>This is why in my view Ada-to-JVM and Ada-to-DOT-NET should be on the >>top of priority list to make Ada popular. > >I wonder how can you think that Ada ever can be popular in the sense you >implied. Any popular and massively used thing will necessarily and quickly >degrade to some average level (at best). A popular Ada can't be generally >better than, say, C++. You mean that any popularity would make Ada worse? (:-)) >> Where you saw cheap subcontractors? (:-)) > >Did you mean that you for some reason can't use individuals as subcontractors? >(Otherwise I can't get this your question.) We cannot use cheap individuals! (:-)) To find a skilled programmer with a permission to work in EU and to pay him/her a salary of a supermarket cashier ... >> > And for those customer's >> > managers you may explain that your technology is a great combination >> > of a solid software engineering methods and technique for fundamental >> > issues of the project and a modern, state-of-art (Java) technology >> > for data communication and data presentation. >> >> Nobody will allow you to do same thing twice. > >Why "same thing"? Do you mean, for example, that a prototype demo, which must >be presented at some early stage of a project and the final release of the >product are now regarded as the same thing, for economy of resources? This is the advantage of Ada-to-Java compiler. The prototype could be compiled into a native code saving much work. >> The customer will fire you if he discover how you spend his money. > >Don't permit him to discover anything of this soft - just expose all that >explicitly in you plan, along with appropriate explanations. Which would be uttely naive. You won't get the contract at all! >> In most cases they wish a >> precise control over how many people are working on the project and >> what exactly they are doing. I never saw a customer, who would say, >> here is NN bucks and X is the deadline. That would be an end of the >> world we live in. (:-)) > >Hm. Try to do with Americans -:) For my (as well as some my friends here) >experience, Americans are generally much smarter and much more flexible >than Europeans in that matters. It is often no problem with Americans to see >a customer who says: $NNN for X at mm/dd/yy (and wonderfully, they keep their >word, as a rule). Although I agree that Europeans tend to pay more for less, >and therefore they may seem more attractive as customers -;) . It again depends on which money are being spent. In bureaucratic Europe with its "solidarity" system you can be paid for nothing (however it is not so easy to find a sinecure). Perhaps, many Americans are *still* spending money of their own. --- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de