SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[Stephen Leake]

I've downloaded GNAT GPL-2006, and it compiles all of my SAL and
Auto_Text_IO code, and passes all tests, without problems. I think
this is a first for a public GNAT release!

So I'm releasing a new version of SAL (2.00) and Auto_Text_IO (3.03).
Support for GNAT 3.15p is now removed, making some things simpler;
I've started using some Ada 2005 features (mainly 'raise ... with
<string>;'.

There are lots of improvements in SAL; it's been almost two years
since the last release, and I've been improving it a lot for work. The
biggest additions are support for left- and right-multiply quaternions
(a somewhat obscure topic, but it took a lot of effort :), and many
more features for config files.

Auto_Text_IO hasn't changed much.

See http://www.toadmail.com/~ada_wizard/ for more info.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[M E Leypold]

Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@acm.org> writes:

> I've downloaded GNAT GPL-2006, and it compiles all of my SAL and
> Auto_Text_IO code, and passes all tests, without problems. I think
> this is a first for a public GNAT release!
> 
> So I'm releasing a new version of SAL (2.00) and Auto_Text_IO (3.03).
> Support for GNAT 3.15p is now removed, making some things simpler;
> I've started using some Ada 2005 features (mainly 'raise ... with
> <string>;'.
> 
> There are lots of improvements in SAL; it's been almost two years
> since the last release, and I've been improving it a lot for work. The
> biggest additions are support for left- and right-multiply quaternions
> (a somewhat obscure topic, but it took a lot of effort :), and many
> more features for config files.
> 
> Auto_Text_IO hasn't changed much.
> 
> See http://www.toadmail.com/~ada_wizard/ for more info.


Some of us are still stuck with 3.15p. We can't GPL our customers code
and being so small we can't pay the ACT support. So we use 3.15p. We
cannot use Ada 2005. We are stuck. "This will take longer" we say to
our customers. "We don't have 'not null'". "This will not look like
OO, this must be Ada 95". And our projects are riddled with old bugs
of 3.15p and ICEs and everything takes a million years and all our
programs crash. We all die. Oh the embarrasment.

Would you, in the light of that situation perhaps, I ask humbly,
consider, to also link the old versions (the last with 3.15p-Support)?

BTW: Joe Haldeman, A !Tangled Web. ("!" is supposed to be a click
sound as in some african languages).

Regards -- Markus

Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[Ludovic Brenta]

M E Leypold declaimed in a spectral voice:
> Some of us are still stuck with 3.15p. We can't GPL our customers code
> and being so small we can't pay the ACT support. So we use 3.15p. We
> cannot use Ada 2005. We are stuck. "This will take longer" we say to
> our customers. "We don't have 'not null'". "This will not look like
> OO, this must be Ada 95". And our projects are riddled with old bugs
> of 3.15p and ICEs and everything takes a million years and all our
> programs crash. We all die. Oh the embarrasment.

But the upgrade path from GNAT 3.15p is quite clear: if you need the
GMGPL but can't or won't pay for GNAT Pro, then migrate to GCC 4.1,
then 4.2 when it is released.  Debian implements that strategy: Sarge
since June 2005 has GNAT 3.15p with several bug fixes; Etch in December
2006 will have GCC 4.1 (already has it, in fact, in testing).

If you need all of AdaCore's libraries in GMGPL binary packages, that's
one more reason to use Debian or, alternatively, one of GNU Ada's
packages. Or roll your own binary packages.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[M E Leypold]

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> M E Leypold declaimed in a spectral voice:
> > Some of us are still stuck with 3.15p. We can't GPL our customers code
> > and being so small we can't pay the ACT support. So we use 3.15p. We
> > cannot use Ada 2005. We are stuck. "This will take longer" we say to
> > our customers. "We don't have 'not null'". "This will not look like
> > OO, this must be Ada 95". And our projects are riddled with old bugs
> > of 3.15p and ICEs and everything takes a million years and all our
> > programs crash. We all die. Oh the embarrasment.
> 
> But the upgrade path from GNAT 3.15p is quite clear: if you need the
> GMGPL but can't or won't pay for GNAT Pro, then migrate to GCC 4.1,
> then 4.2 when it is released.  Debian implements that strategy: Sarge
> since June 2005 has GNAT 3.15p with several bug fixes; Etch in December
> 2006 will have GCC 4.1 (already has it, in fact, in testing).

(This release cycles will be my death one day: Another release after
1.5 years? Hell, I worked happily with Turbo Pascal 5+6 for years (or
it only seemed so, I'm not sure any more :-)).

Well, I know that. I'v only been asking to keep the old versions.

Two points to think about:

  - When we started the project there was no GCC 4.1 and GCC 3.x Ada
    support was rumored to be bad. So we decided to stick with 3.15p
    at that time. Call me conservative. I prefer known bugs and
    weaknesses to new ones.

  - Project is cross-platform: 3.15p came readily packaged and self
    contained. It will take some time to shift the Windows build
    machine to gcc 4.1 (if that is even possible yet). That will have
    to use MINGW (I think?) so this is a larger change from what we
    had, since that needs to coexists with cygwin.

  - I'm somewhat disinclined to change horses in midrace as it is. So
    migration to gcc 4.1 (for all builds) will be something which has
    do be done of a course of months if not years. If a build fails
    with gccada we'll have to build under 3.15p anyway so retaining
    3.15p as an insurance (also against wild license changes, you
    understand ...) is a matter of policy.

But thanks for your explanation anyway.

> If you need all of AdaCore's libraries in GMGPL binary packages, that's
> one more reason to use Debian or, alternatively, one of GNU Ada's
> packages. Or roll your own binary packages.

Exactly. Why do you think I _am_ using Debian? :-) I'd like to thank
you and the Debian team here for the really solid piece of work you're
doing.

BTW: Is there a bug tracking for gnat 3.15p somewhere? I've found
various bugs in the runtime and have not reproduced them with newer
gnats but suppose that they are still here (at least some of them ...).

Regards -- Markus

Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[Ludovic Brenta]

M E Leypold said:
> (This release cycles will be my death one day: Another release after
> 1.5 years? Hell, I worked happily with Turbo Pascal 5+6 for years (or
> it only seemed so, I'm not sure any more :-)).

Heh, you're the first one who says Debian's release cycle is too fast
:)

http://www.debian.org/News/2006/20060601

Support for Debian 3.0 "Woody" (which includes GNAT 3.14p) is due to
end one year after 3.1 "Sarge" was released. I think "Sarge" will be
similarly supported for some time after "Etch" is released. And if you
pay me, then I can guarantee that :-)

> Well, I know that. I'v only been asking to keep the old versions.
>
> Two points to think about:
>
>   - When we started the project there was no GCC 4.1 and GCC 3.x Ada
>     support was rumored to be bad. So we decided to stick with 3.15p
>     at that time. Call me conservative. I prefer known bugs and
>     weaknesses to new ones.

That was also my policy when I worked on Sarge; at that time GCC 3.3
was already out and was the default C and C++ compiler.

>   - Project is cross-platform: 3.15p came readily packaged and self
>     contained. It will take some time to shift the Windows build
>     machine to gcc 4.1 (if that is even possible yet). That will have
>     to use MINGW (I think?) so this is a larger change from what we
>     had, since that needs to coexists with cygwin.

Yes, all transitions involve work. I should know.

>   - I'm somewhat disinclined to change horses in midrace as it is. So
>     migration to gcc 4.1 (for all builds) will be something which has
>     do be done of a course of months if not years. If a build fails
>     with gccada we'll have to build under 3.15p anyway so retaining
>     3.15p as an insurance (also against wild license changes, you
>     understand ...) is a matter of policy.

That sounds reasonable. At least, now you can plan ahead for the
transition, and you know where to migrate to. You are not "stuck".
Rejoice :)

> But thanks for your explanation anyway.
>
>> If you need all of AdaCore's libraries in GMGPL binary packages, that's
>> one more reason to use Debian or, alternatively, one of GNU Ada's
>> packages. Or roll your own binary packages.
>
> Exactly. Why do you think I _am_ using Debian? :-) I'd like to thank
> you and the Debian team here for the really solid piece of work you're
> doing.

Thanks a lot. Debian is a good development platform, but also a good,
stable deployment (target) platform. Do any of your customers use it?
Do you provide your software in .deb format? Do you use the project
files provided with each library?

> BTW: Is there a bug tracking for gnat 3.15p somewhere? I've found
> various bugs in the runtime and have not reproduced them with newer
> gnats but suppose that they are still here (at least some of them ...).

AdaCore do not make their bug tracker public, but Debian does.  You're
most welcome to use it. GNU Ada uses SourceForge's tracker, but there
are very few bugs in it, all closed.

http://bugs.debian.org/gnat

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[M E Leypold]

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> M E Leypold said:
> > (This release cycles will be my death one day: Another release after
> > 1.5 years? Hell, I worked happily with Turbo Pascal 5+6 for years (or
> > it only seemed so, I'm not sure any more :-)).
> 
> Heh, you're the first one who says Debian's release cycle is too fast
> :)

This was only partly a joke. 

Actually consider: Debian is very well behaved if you upgrade between
release. Nonetheless, things change: Libraries that were bleeding edge
in the last release stop working (i.e. the XML-Parsers in Python),
configuration syntax changes (i.e. Postfix/Cyrus between Woody and
Sarge). If I deploy a server at a customers site and just firewall it
off, the customer is somehwat reluctant to have me upgrading a
"machine that works" every N months. (N around 24 for Debian and
araound 3 for SuSE). Also all my/our expensively obtained knowledge
about OS quirks and tricks to work around them becomes obsolete after
N months (but the quirks are replaced by new ones).

The same with binary compatibility: I once bought a license for VMWARE
(when they were still cheap). That was cool. A year later the binary
was dead (I think I had Redhatat the time) and a new license, hurray
would have ben ~5 times the amount. Needless to say: You can't build a
"costwise stable" solution in these circumstances.

I don't want to say anything nice about Windows, but since its almost
the only nice thing that can be said about it: Windows retained far
reaching binary compatibility over more then 10 years. That is, you
can upgrade your hardware, load a newer windows on it and install your
old proved software.

(Please don't flame me: That's no attempt to troll :-).

And (admittedly quick and dirty) scripts also stop working between
Debian releaseses. Whereever the fault for that might lay (with me
probably), that means it is always an effort to change release (have I
mentioned subtle flaws in printer definitions that make me very
reluctant to change release at the customers site since any change is
BAD, even if it only results in a customer call: "The margins are now
different and letter head and text don't align anymore".)
 
So the conclusion is: I mostly don't care for the newest and latest
software, but prefer that everything stays the same :-). Sort of.


> That sounds reasonable. At least, now you can plan ahead for the
> transition, and you know where to migrate to. You are not "stuck".
> Rejoice :)

No. I'm not "stuck", I know. I just wanted to ask SL to retain the old
version for some time (or until nobody remembers 3.15p any more) and
my lament only was a parody on some SF-Story which SL himself parodied
on c.l.a some time ago. Everything is well actually -- as far as 3.15p
and the upgrade path is concerned, I'm more annoyed on the absolutely
murky licensing situation(s) concerning libraries and a bit tired of
watching my back all the time. 

Switching libraries from GMPL to GPL is everyones god give right, but
it hurts me and probably not only me. There's much to be said about
that, but I'll save that for another thread.

> Thanks a lot. Debian is a good development platform, but also a good,
> stable deployment (target) platform. Do any of your customers use it?
> Do you provide your software in .deb format? Do you use the project
> files provided with each library?

Yes, yes, yes, sometimes, no (presently not). I think I'll write you
more by mail, this is not for usenet :-).


> > BTW: Is there a bug tracking for gnat 3.15p somewhere? I've found
> > various bugs in the runtime and have not reproduced them with newer
> > gnats but suppose that they are still here (at least some of them ...).
> 
> AdaCore do not make their bug tracker public, but Debian does.  You're
> most welcome to use it. GNU Ada uses SourceForge's tracker, but there
> are very few bugs in it, all closed.
> 
> http://bugs.debian.org/gnat

I will post some bugs there (within weeks). The idea would not be to
have somebody answer "just upgrade to version xyz", but also to
document that 3.15p (for those "stuck" with it) has the bug in
question.

Regards -- Markus

Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[Björn Persson]

M E Leypold wrote:
> I don't want to say anything nice about Windows, but since its almost
> the only nice thing that can be said about it: Windows retained far
> reaching binary compatibility over more then 10 years. That is, you
> can upgrade your hardware, load a newer windows on it and install your
> old proved software.

Well, that's because Windows software is *supposed* to be proprietary. 
For free software, binary compatibility isn't so important, as it can 
usually be recompiled easily. It's quite understandable if free software 
advocates don't bend themselves over to support proprietary software.

-- 
Bj�rn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[Stephen Leake]

M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8a-REMOVETHIS@m-e-leypold.de> writes:

> Some of us are still stuck with 3.15p. We can't GPL our customers code
> and being so small we can't pay the ACT support. 

How small can you be to not afford $15k/year? I've never worked for a
small company (I work for the US government), so I have no experience
with this. But it seems to me that if you are paying two people's
salary, then you aught to be able to afford 15k for a very important
tool. 

> So we use 3.15p. We cannot use Ada 2005. We are stuck. "This will
> take longer" we say to our customers. "We don't have 'not null'".
> "This will not look like OO, this must be Ada 95". And our projects
> are riddled with old bugs of 3.15p and ICEs and everything takes a
> million years and all our programs crash. We all die. Oh the
> embarrasment.

I see the implied smiley, but all that could be cured for $15k. Well
worth it!

> Would you, in the light of that situation perhaps, I ask humbly,
> consider, to also link the old versions (the last with 3.15p-Support)?

I'm not sure what you mean by "link".

If you mean "keep the .tar.gz files on your website", I suppose I
could. But that implies some level of support, which I don't want to
do. It's just as easy for you to keep those files on your machine.

If you _didn't_ keep a copy, then you need to seriously reconsider
your backup plan!

Having said all that, what are you using SAL for? I never hear from
users.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[M E Leypold]

Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@acm.org> writes:

> M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8a-REMOVETHIS@m-e-leypold.de> writes:
> 
> > Some of us are still stuck with 3.15p. We can't GPL our customers code
> > and being so small we can't pay the ACT support. 

> How small can you be to not afford $15k/year? 
> I've never worked for a small company (I work for the US
> government), so I have no experience with this.
> But it seems to me that if you are paying two people's
> salary, then you aught to be able to afford 15k for a very important
> tool. 

Stephen, I'm not discussing nature or size of my business on
usenet. The point I made in another post was, that entry-costs of
$15000 are quite a hindrance in bootstrapping any business in Ada
software (development) _gradually_.

And concerning the general tone of my message (that on which you
answered here) you should probably have seen the smiley from the very
beginning. Please :-).
 
> > Would you, in the light of that situation perhaps, I ask humbly,
> > consider, to also link the old versions (the last with 3.15p-Support)?
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "link".
> 
> If you mean "keep the .tar.gz files on your website", I suppose I
> could. 

Yep, that I mean.

> But that implies some level of support, which I don't want to
> do. 

Well, I don't think it does. You could even state that explicitly.

> It's just as easy for you to keep those files on your machine.

It is and I have them. I only thought (suggestion only) it would be
good practice if/when you introduce incompatible changes in a piece of
software, it would be good practice to keep the older versions
available for some time. I imagine that there are still a lot of users
of 3.15p out there, especially on windows (but also on Debian: If one
doesn't want to replace the compiler that comes with the system).

> If you _didn't_ keep a copy, then you need to seriously reconsider
> your backup plan!

Stephen, please don't lecture me. I'd prefer discussion at eye
level.

> Having said all that, what are you using SAL for? I never hear from
> users.

Not yet. I staged them in our source tree and there were
considerations to use SAL instead of Martin Dowies backport of
Ada.Containers as working mechanisms in some library. This has come to
nothing yet. I'm not sure wether it will done now, since the old SAL
is now "unsupported". We'll probably have to postpone integration of
SAL until after we have done the transition to some newer version of
GNAT.

Regards -- Markus

Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[Stephen Leake]

M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes:

> Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@acm.org> writes:
>
>> M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8a-REMOVETHIS@m-e-leypold.de> writes:
>> 
>> > Some of us are still stuck with 3.15p. We can't GPL our customers code
>> > and being so small we can't pay the ACT support. 
>
>> How small can you be to not afford $15k/year? 
>> I've never worked for a small company (I work for the US
>> government), so I have no experience with this.
>> But it seems to me that if you are paying two people's
>> salary, then you aught to be able to afford 15k for a very important
>> tool. 
>
> Stephen, I'm not discussing nature or size of my business on
> usenet. The point I made in another post was, that entry-costs of
> $15000 are quite a hindrance in bootstrapping any business in Ada
> software (development) _gradually_.

Well, ok. I'm still in the dark. I can't imagine trying to start an
actual profit making business on less that $15k. But I guess that's
why I'm working for the government :).

>> > Would you, in the light of that situation perhaps, I ask humbly,
>> > consider, to also link the old versions (the last with 3.15p-Support)?
>> 
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "link".
>> 
>> If you mean "keep the .tar.gz files on your website", I suppose I
>> could. 
>
> Yep, that I mean.
>
>> But that implies some level of support, which I don't want to
>> do. 
>
> Well, I don't think it does. You could even state that explicitly.

As others have pointed out, people make all kinds of unwarranted
assumptions about things posted on the web, even in the face of
explicit statements to the contrary.

>> It's just as easy for you to keep those files on your machine.
>
> It is and I have them. I only thought (suggestion only) it would be
> good practice if/when you introduce incompatible changes in a piece of
> software, it would be good practice to keep the older versions
> available for some time. I imagine that there are still a lot of users
> of 3.15p out there, especially on windows (but also on Debian: If one
> doesn't want to replace the compiler that comes with the system).

Hmm. I suppose if I had an active user community, and a goal of
growing that community, that would be a concern. In fact, I am not
aware of any users except myself and my team at work, and my only
concern is making the library most useful to us. That means taking
full advantage of Ada 2005.

Posting SAL on the web is partly egoizing, partly general Ada
awareness boosting.

>> If you _didn't_ keep a copy, then you need to seriously reconsider
>> your backup plan!
>
> Stephen, please don't lecture me. I'd prefer discussion at eye
> level.

I apologize if you took offense. I took your request as an indication
that you might not have a backup of your own. I have encountered
people who have made exactly that mistake (with a different package of
mine), even when their actual jobs were relying on it. My statement
was also intended for any other users of SAL, and of other packages
obtained without an explicit support contract involving sufficient
money to make it meaningful.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:53:23 -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:

> Well, ok. I'm still in the dark. I can't imagine trying to start an
> actual profit making business on less that $15k. But I guess that's
> why I'm working for the government :).

Will any government Ada again? (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[M E Leypold]

Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@acm.org> writes:

> As others have pointed out, people make all kinds of unwarranted
> assumptions about things posted on the web, even in the face of
> explicit statements to the contrary.

I very understand that very well having been the "victim" of
unwarranted assupmtions myself. My request was only to keep the old
versions available for some time (Hey, if you don't know about an
active user community, I wouldn't expect that you had so many support
requests after all, so you could have those (zero?) support requests
for some time longer, couldn't you?).

My request was based (apart from its parodistic form) based on an
argument which I posed in another thread and which amounts to that
3.15p is not dead yet, since there is no other standolane packaging
for windows yet and some distributions (Debian) haven't migrated yet. 

Please -- it _was_ only a humble request so don't take offense (better
take offense on the more outrageous things a say elsewher on c.l.a
.. :-).)


> >> It's just as easy for you to keep those files on your machine.
> >
> > It is and I have them. I only thought (suggestion only) it would be
> > good practice if/when you introduce incompatible changes in a piece of
> > software, it would be good practice to keep the older versions
> > available for some time. I imagine that there are still a lot of users
> > of 3.15p out there, especially on windows (but also on Debian: If one
> > doesn't want to replace the compiler that comes with the system).
> 
> Hmm. I suppose if I had an active user community, and a goal of
> growing that community, that would be a concern. In fact, I am not
> aware of any users except myself and my team at work, and my only
> concern is making the library most useful to us. That means taking
> full advantage of Ada 2005.


I understand. So -- I didn't ask to retain Ada 95 compatibility in the
new versions only to keep the old files online and frankly, since I
have them, I've mostly been thinking about "the community" whatever
that is in the Ada world. I've noticed the tendency of some Ada
software to become unavailable really fast, which (also as a software
archeologist, sort of, saddens me, and which is actually different in
other communities. Therefore perhaps my different expectations.

Would you oppose that I put the old version online without any much
advertising just as a reference and a convenience for other people
(which are perhaps not mirroring as much as I do :-).

> Posting SAL on the web is partly egoizing, 

I understand that. Don't we do that all? :-) 

> partly general Ada awareness boosting.

Got you there :-)). Let me tell: It's good for Ada, if not all Ada 95
files go away within the next months. Ada 2005 support has not reached
the masses yet completely :-)).


> >> If you _didn't_ keep a copy, then you need to seriously reconsider
> >> your backup plan!
> >
> > Stephen, please don't lecture me. I'd prefer discussion at eye
> > level.

> I apologize if you took offense. 

Hey, and don't apologize. No need to. I just take your statement that
no offense was intended and that _is_ enough. I also didn't want to be
sidetracked into a discussion about (my) backup habits (which are
quite obsessive) and wether backups are substitute for online
availability (they aren't).

> I took your request as an indication that you might not have a
> backup of your own. I have encountered people who have made exactly
> that mistake (with a different package of mine), even when their
> actual jobs were relying on it.

Yeah, well. Bad mistake. :-).

> My statement was also intended for any other users of SAL, and of
> other packages obtained without an explicit support contract
> involving sufficient money to make it meaningful.

Well, well. I see, we have some different view here. If, say, the GNU
folks or the gcc people pulled their servers just overnight wouldn't
we all be justly pissed of, even if we could have backed up all
relevant files before? Even if we haven't paid them a dime for a
support contract?

Now, whatever. Concerning availability of the old files, I have mad my
case. If my spiel didn't convince you, what about the older versions
being retained in an online archive? 

Regards -- Markus

Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[Stephen Leake]

M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes:

> Would you oppose that I put the old version online without any much
> advertising just as a reference and a convenience for other people
> (which are perhaps not mirroring as much as I do :-).

That's fine with me.

>> Posting SAL on the web is partly egoizing, 
>
> I understand that. Don't we do that all? :-) 
>
>> partly general Ada awareness boosting.
>
> Got you there :-)). Let me tell: It's good for Ada, if not all Ada 95
> files go away within the next months. Ada 2005 support has not reached
> the masses yet completely :-)).

That's only true if you believe "the masses" can't use GPL runtime
libraries. Yes, I have read your other posts on 3.15p. I'm not
convinced :).

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[M E Leypold]

Stephen Leake <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov> writes:

> M E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes:
> 
> > Would you oppose that I put the old version online without any much
> > advertising just as a reference and a convenience for other people
> > (which are perhaps not mirroring as much as I do :-).
> 
> That's fine with me.

OK. Thanks for your permission.

> >> Posting SAL on the web is partly egoizing, 
> >
> > I understand that. Don't we do that all? :-) 
> >
> >> partly general Ada awareness boosting.
> >
> > Got you there :-)). Let me tell: It's good for Ada, if not all Ada 95
> > files go away within the next months. Ada 2005 support has not reached
> > the masses yet completely :-)).
> 
> That's only true if you believe "the masses" can't use GPL runtime
> libraries. Yes, I have read your other posts on 3.15p. I'm not
> convinced :).

OK. I can live with your different opinion. Can't convince everyone,
and from our "15K is unaffordable" discussion we already know that we
live in somewhat different worlds. :-)

Just as a small, just so tinsy correction -- when I said, Ada 2005
hasn't reached the masses yet, I were not talking about that "the
masses" can't use GPL Gnat, but rather, that most Gnats coming with
current distributions are not Ada 2005 yet: Debian has 3.15p, SuSE
9.x, AFAIK know had a gcc 3.x based Gnat and so on: People dont'
upgrade a working system every three months, so I'd expect it to take
around 10 month from now until current distro don't carry 3.15p any
more, and at least further 18 months from then until most occurrences
of 3.15p in the wild go away. Of course that is all based on the
assumption that somebody is actually using Ada, except people with Ada
at work and presumably an ACT support contract there, also. Which is a
thing that could well be.

Regards -- Markus

Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[Martin Krischik]

M E Leypold wrote:

> SuSE
> 9.x, AFAIK know had a gcc 3.x based Gnat

Yep - but SuSE 10.1 is:

GNAT 4.1.0 (SUSE Linux)
Copyright 1996-2005, Free Software Foundation, Inc.

List of available commands

gnat bind               gnatbind
gnat chop               gnatchop
gnat clean              gnatclean
gnat compile            gnatmake -f -u -c
gnat elim               gnatelim
gnat find               gnatfind
gnat krunch             gnatkr
gnat link               gnatlink
gnat list               gnatls
gnat make               gnatmake
gnat metric             gnatmetric
gnat name               gnatname
gnat preprocess         gnatprep
gnat pretty             gnatpp
gnat setup
gnat stub               gnatstub
gnat xref               gnatxref

Commands find, list, metric, pretty, stub and xref accept project file
switches -vPx, -Pprj and -Xnam=val

martin
-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Ada programming at: http://ada.krischik.com

Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[M E Leypold]

Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:

> M E Leypold wrote:
> 
> > SuSE
> > 9.x, AFAIK know had a gcc 3.x based Gnat
> 
> Yep - but SuSE 10.1 is:
> 
> GNAT 4.1.0 (SUSE Linux)
> Copyright 1996-2005, Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Right. But my argument was that all that old installation won't go
away this fast. Upgrading the build machine (in example) during a
development project is perhaps unwise. So I wouldn't expect all
occurrences of Ada 95 compilers (Gnats) out there to go away for
another couple of months if not years.

Regards -- Markus

Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[Randy Brukardt]

"Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@acm.org> wrote in message
news:u3bdw6njw.fsf@acm.org...
> > Stephen, I'm not discussing nature or size of my business on
> > usenet. The point I made in another post was, that entry-costs of
> > $15000 are quite a hindrance in bootstrapping any business in Ada
> > software (development) _gradually_.
>
> Well, ok. I'm still in the dark. I can't imagine trying to start an
> actual profit making business on less that $15k. But I guess that's
> why I'm working for the government :).

Probably. ;-)

RR Software was started on an investment of $1500. Admittedly, that wasn't
enough, but what did we know? That money was earmarked for advertising (else
no one would know about our products). These days, I'd concentrate on the
web (cheaper and as effective), but of course that wasn't possible in
1981-2.

If you think a start-up business can afford $15K a year, I think you're
really out of touch. Start-ups generally have little free money, and it is
used for essentials: equipment, utilities, rent, marketing, and so on. The
people are generally paid out of profits (thus "sweat equity", because the
people rarely earn early on what they would in a typical job). If there are
no profits, then there is no pay! So the cost of essentials is kept to a
minimum. I doubt that many would invest $15K a year when there are many
cheaper alternatives out there.

                                    Randy.

Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[M E Leypold]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

> "Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@acm.org> wrote in message
> news:u3bdw6njw.fsf@acm.org...
> > > Stephen, I'm not discussing nature or size of my business on
> > > usenet. The point I made in another post was, that entry-costs of
> > > $15000 are quite a hindrance in bootstrapping any business in Ada
> > > software (development) _gradually_.
> >
> > Well, ok. I'm still in the dark. I can't imagine trying to start an
> > actual profit making business on less that $15k. But I guess that's
> > why I'm working for the government :).
> 
> Probably. ;-)
> 
> RR Software was started on an investment of $1500. Admittedly, that wasn't
> enough, but what did we know? That money was earmarked for advertising (else
> no one would know about our products). These days, I'd concentrate on the
> web (cheaper and as effective), but of course that wasn't possible in
> 1981-2.
> 
> If you think a start-up business can afford $15K a year, I think you're
> really out of touch. Start-ups generally have little free money, and it is
> used for essentials: equipment, utilities, rent, marketing, and so on. The
> people are generally paid out of profits (thus "sweat equity", because the
> people rarely earn early on what they would in a typical job). If there are
> no profits, then there is no pay! So the cost of essentials is kept to a
> minimum. I doubt that many would invest $15K a year when there are many
> cheaper alternatives out there.

Many thanks, Randy, for putting the case so much more aptly than I
could have done :-). And also from the horses mouth.

I'd like to add another scenario: Spending 15K for an Ada compiler
support contract is probably only justfied if you make many times that
amount _as business volume_ in Ada software alone. 

Only: Such a volume doesn't come overnight and needs to be slowly
grown. At least at the beginning, even if/when you already have a
business going, only a small minority of projects will be suitable to
be done in Ada. Mostly projects which would have been done in C/C++ if
the new policy weren't Ada now _and_ where the customer doesn't have a
preference (in small projects customers often have irrational
preferences).

So let's have an example: Let's make it simple and assume we have
never done an Ada project before but we have people having Ada
skills. Let's assume that we now have a project, where we can use Ada
and the customer would pay N for that project. Now a very rough
calculation goes like this:

 - The customer expects that we support the product for around 10
   years.

 - Assume we buy a 15K license/support for any of this 10 years, that
   would be 150K we'd have to spend in the future.

 - Support will be slow, let's say S / year (mostly patching away
   already existing bugs, sometimes introducing a new field in the
   data base or the GUI)

 - Then we'll have somehow to pay for the developer time, say D.

So we must have N + S > 150K + D. (I've not included taxes and this
like, but that'd would only make it worser). As a rule of thumb (since
probably S<=D) we conclude: N > 150K.
 
So the conclusion is: Either your first Ada project is 150K in volume
or you're better sure, that it is not your last one (that last is
spelled "RISK"). Or you do it w/o Ada or w/o the support contract.

I might not be completly realistic in some points (since I simplified
a lot), but my principal hypothesis stands: There is a large entry
barrier into the Ada Market if you're forced to buy a 15K license.
(and please note the "if": My research on alternatives and the
licenses of the "available" libraries and their prospective future is
not finished yet).

But if this is so, it contrasts badly to the situation in other
communities (C, C++, OCaml, Scheme, Haskell, Jave: Compiler runtime,
libraries, especial bindings to the OS interface and the graphical
toolkits are all under very liberal licenses as far as "link and sell
your software" is concerned :-) ).

IMHO if Florist and GTkAda go pure GPL that will hurt Ada like nothing
before. I'd wish that the community here (which has some interest in
advocating Ada over other languages, say Java or FORTRAN (pardon,
thats Fortran today ... :-)) would have the ability to see that.

Regards -- Markus

Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[Georg Bauhaus]

M E Leypold wrote:

> IMHO if Florist and GTkAda go pure GPL that will hurt Ada like nothing
> before. I'd wish that the community here (which has some interest in
> advocating Ada over other languages, say Java or FORTRAN (pardon,
> thats Fortran today ... :-)) would have the ability to see that.

It might not be necessary to see conditional futures in the presence
of GMGPL releases, unsupported as they may be. It is also permitted
to copy ideas from GPL software.

I'm not sure whether growing Ada business cares about public
availability of Ada stuff without GPL restrictions, about portability,
about the Ada mission etc when living in a niche seems just fine.
Don't know whether market actors will ever see the coexistence
of collaboration and competition as a possibility that helps
everyone: imagine vendors working on portable Ada libraries, and still
getting payed for compilers, IDEs, and support.

Anyway, among those who see the library issues that low budget shops
have are, for example, MinGW, Debian GNAT, or gnuada.sf.net.
Some libraries are offered with support at a moderate price
(PragmAda is among these IIRC, as is CLAW).


-- Georg 

Re: SAL, Auto_Text_IO release

[M E Leypold]

Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

> M E Leypold wrote:
> 
> > IMHO if Florist and GTkAda go pure GPL that will hurt Ada like nothing
> > before. I'd wish that the community here (which has some interest in
> > advocating Ada over other languages, say Java or FORTRAN (pardon,
> > thats Fortran today ... :-)) would have the ability to see that.
> 
> It might not be necessary to see conditional futures in the presence
> of GMGPL releases, unsupported as they may be. It is also permitted
> to copy ideas from GPL software.

That I can't parse ore relate to my own statement? What did you mean?

> I'm not sure whether growing Ada business cares about public

Growing? What have I missed? :-).

> availability of Ada stuff without GPL restrictions, about portability,
> about the Ada mission etc when living in a niche seems just fine.

> Don't know whether market actors will ever see the coexistence
> of collaboration and competition as a possibility that helps
> everyone: imagine vendors working on portable Ada libraries, and still
> getting payed for compilers, IDEs, and support.

Well. ACT (i.e.) did see this coexistence obviously for some time.


> Anyway, among those who see the library issues that low budget shops
> have are, for example, MinGW, Debian GNAT, or gnuada.sf.net.

Most of that is a fork of the former GMGPL version of Gnat, Florist,
etc. The intresting part is, that I have the feeling that (a) GtkAda
is not GMGPL any more and (b) hardly anybody has realized that yet and
(c) it is not clear what the last GMGPL version (if ever) was.

Since GtkAda presently is the only portable GUI-Binding (portable
between Win32 and Linux) which looks like something "consumers" would
find acceptable (I don't want to bash the Tk-Binding -- haven't tried
it and Tk has perhaps become much more modern than the version I
remember) -- If it now turns out, that GtkAda has been pure-GPL for a
long time, "we" have obviously missed the time for a GMGPL fork.

That's all a lot of "if"'s, so one will have to see.

Regards -- Markus