Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)

Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)

[Sean McNeil]

In article <3lphat$i0g@news1.delphi.com>,  <tmoran@bix.com> wrote:
>>Funding GNAT was an extremely cost-effective way to boost the number
>>of Ada programmers.
>And how much money was spent on market research to find what sort of
>customers currently use Ada vs C, why, and what might cause them to
>change (in either direction)?
>
>>Without GNAT, there would have been no widely available compiler that
>>implemented Ada 95 features for the past 18 months.  AETech's
>>compiler was Intel/DOS or Intel/POSIX only, and was not FTP-able by
>>the new generation of Internet junkies.
>
>[Basically alot about fractions.] ;)

I have been working at Hughes for a while and David Naiditch just started
an introduction class to Ada 95.  I got up and told everyone about the
GNAT compiler and brought floppies with the OS/2 and DOS versions to the
class.  There was alot of interest in GNAT even after I pointed out it's
deficiencies.  Some people were just glad to have a syntax and semantic
checker.  I personally have not used GNAT that much, but that will change
as soon as I have a reason to use it.  I think that if all work on GNAT
was to stop now, it would have still been worth the effort.  I can't
imagine how many people will be exposed to Ada 95 by using GNAT.

In summary, as long as there is a fraction (i.e. not zero), then GNAT
has done a good job.

Sean McNeil

Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)

[tmoran]

>Funding GNAT was an extremely cost-effective way to boost the number
>of Ada programmers.
And how much money was spent on market research to find what sort of
customers currently use Ada vs C, why, and what might cause them to
change (in either direction)?

>Without GNAT, there would have been no widely available compiler that
>implemented Ada 95 features for the past 18 months.  AETech's
>compiler was Intel/DOS or Intel/POSIX only, and was not FTP-able by
>the new generation of Internet junkies.

What fraction of potential Ada customers (ie programmers) use
Intel/DOS or Windows 3.1 vs OS2, NT, Sun, SGI, etc?

For what fraction is a multi-meg FTP more convenient than diskettes?

What fraction have heard that Ada produces huge executables after
long compile times, and does Gnat remove those fears?

What fraction have heard that Ada is good for real time work - and
what do they think when Barne's suggested code style

delay 2*Hours+40*Minutes;

gives compilation errors at columns 9 and 18 for '*'?

When programmers try to get their feet wet with Ada by writing a
real program, which is more important: Ada 95 features; or
convenient OS interface and debugging tools?

Of the world's population of programmers, what fraction has tried
Gnat?  What fraction potentially could try it?  Of those who have
downloaded Gnat or bought the CDROM, what fraction has reported a
bug, asked a question, or otherwise indicated continuing use?

Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)

[tmoran]

>In summary, as long as there is a fraction (i.e. not zero), then GNAT
>has done a good job.
The important question is not even 'does the GNAT experience
bring people to Ada', but 'how many people does GNAT bring to Ada
vs how many might have been attracted by a different way (eg
carefully researched and directed advertising, bindings, etc)'
of spending a similar amount of money.  ie, bang for the buck.
  We need not hundreds of folks converted to Ada, but tens of
thousands.

Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <3lv3et$dcb@news1.delphi.com>, tmoran@bix.com writes:

> The important question is not even 'does the GNAT experience
> bring people to Ada', but 'how many people does GNAT bring to Ada
> vs how many might have been attracted by a different way (eg
> carefully researched and directed advertising, bindings, etc)'
> of spending a similar amount of money.  ie, bang for the buck.

Effectiveness of advertising is considerably more difficult to measure
than just about anything pertaining to compilers.  A reasonable approach
is to avoid putting all of one's eggs into one basket.  The US government
has capabilities to do one thing with vigor -- throw money at a problem.
GNAT would seem to be an ideal candidate for that sort of approach (much
better than advertising, since you get something concrete out of it).

But the US (or any other) government has no capability for passion.
Those killer WEB pages, that idea for a better mechanism for SUN's
HTML interface, etc. are equally valid mechanisms, and thankfully do
not require government funding.

Likewise, articles in Embedded Systems Daily would be hopeless if they
required some government sign-off before being published.

Of course I don't think Ada has a chance unless it gets an advertising
budget equal to that which originally fielded the most rapidly growing
computer phenomenon - WWW :-).

Larry Kilgallen

Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)

[Tucker Taft]

tmoran@bix.com wrote:

: >In summary, as long as there is a fraction (i.e. not zero), then GNAT
: >has done a good job.

: The important question is not even 'does the GNAT experience
: bring people to Ada', but 'how many people does GNAT bring to Ada
: vs how many might have been attracted by a different way (eg
: carefully researched and directed advertising, bindings, etc)'
: of spending a similar amount of money.  ie, bang for the buck.

It would be silly to attract people to Ada 95 without providing them
a way to use it economically.  Any amount of advertising, bindings, etc.,
relating to Ada 95 is pointless if there is no widely available
Ada 95 compiler.

:   We need not hundreds of folks converted to Ada, but tens of
: thousands.

GNAT was just one part of the Ada 9X Project Office's efforts
to promote Ada 95.  There are also advertisements in appropriate
magazines, a free 1-800 number, promotional videos, catalogs of 
Ada resources, a multimedia training CD-ROM, user/implementor contracts,
etc.  However, GNAT is still the critical component to all of these 
efforts, because there is no point in getting people excited about 
something without providing them some way to try it out.

-Tucker Taft   stt@inmet.com
Intermetrics, Inc.

Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)

[Robert Dewar]

tmoran says:

"The important question is not even 'does the GNAT experience
bring people to Ada', but 'how many people does GNAT bring to Ada
vs how many might have been attracted by a different way (eg
carefully researched and directed advertising, bindings, etc)'
of spending a similar amount of money.  ie, bang for the buck.
  We need not hundreds of folks converted to Ada, but tens of
thousands."

True enough, and we will have to see how effective GNAT is in this respect.
Probably we are somewhere in between now.

Note however, that directed advertising, or bindings  would not have any
effect whatsoever in the academic environment, where the lack of easily
downloadable free stuff has been a definite impediment in the past.

Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)

[Laurent Gasser]

This is the first time I learn about this promotion.  I regularly
read this group though.

What kind of promotion is it if comp.lang.ada is not recalling some 
nice informations like these from time to time.  I always got the
feeling that C++ products vendors were almost intrusive (*) whereas 
I had a hard time to learn about the adresses of companies selling Ada
products.

I don't even speak about some polite and respectful incentives to look
at the language Ada on other news groups...

(*) For the side story, I live in the French speaking part of
Switzerland.  I registered at Symantech for their Think Pascal
compiler on Macintosh.  I never heard of them for more than two years
when suddenly, I received an advertisement mail about C++ for Windows,
in German.

I don't speak German very well,
I hate Windows,
I don't like C++ very much.

Now, I am a MetroWerks' customer...
 
And also bought one copy of Meridian Ada 4.1.4 on Mac! (Thanks Mike
Feldman)

In article <D6o3tw.4Hv@inmet.camb.inmet.com>, stt@spock.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) writes:
|> GNAT was just one part of the Ada 9X Project Office's efforts
|> to promote Ada 95.  There are also advertisements in appropriate
|> magazines, a free 1-800 number, promotional videos, catalogs of 
|> Ada resources, a multimedia training CD-ROM, user/implementor contracts,
|> etc.  However, GNAT is still the critical component to all of these 
|> efforts, because there is no point in getting people excited about 
|> something without providing them some way to try it out.
|> 
|> -Tucker Taft   stt@inmet.com
|> Intermetrics, Inc.

-- 
Laurent Gasser (gasser@dma.epfl.ch)
Computers do not solve problems, they execute solutions.

Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)

[David Weller]

In article <3mjccv$gts@news.znet.com>, Jim Dorman  <jimd@pcada.com> wrote:
>
>Well, What do you think???? I think theere is a lot of ttruth to it.
>...
>multiple vendors, including some of my own, but I have never seen
>positive comments about commercial Ada products that did have a large
>dose of criticism included. Obviously, everything could be improved!
>...
>  If you don't like it, tell me
>  If you do like it, tell the world
>

Jim, I'm going to have to disagree with you here.  First, I think
that you lengthy post is laced with the same ignorance we see from
other "real-world" businessmen, namely that a "free" compiler
obviously isn't worth it's salt, and is unfairly taking business away
from the commercial markets.  There is an enormously thriving
business with the gcc compiler (yes, even being used in some of those
"life critical" apps, etc.), _because_ it is a good compiler.  How
many businesses went under because of gcc? (None that I recall)  How
damaged is the C/C++ compiler market because of gcc?  I haven't noticed
any problems.  

GNAT, thank God, has raised the standard of quality for Ada
compilers.  I'm not saying GNAT is _better_ than any compiler on the
market today, but that we have some "breathing room".  

As for complaints...well, I DEFINITELY see more complaints about GNAT
on here than any other compiler.  And as for the "If the compiler is
broken, only tell me, but if it works great, we'd like you to be a
free spokesperson for our company", I'll pass.  If I like a product,
I'll say it, if I don't like a product, and it's worth mentioning on
comp.lang.ada, I'll mention that too.  If you think commercial Ada
products take a blistering here, I'm telling you right now this is
child's play compared to some of the stuff flying on comp.lang.c++.
Public criticism (or praise) should not be silenced.  If it's an
unfair critique, kindly correct the poster.  For instance, it's quite
possible I misinterpreted some of your comments -- it was a lengthy
post and I might have missed some context.  If that's the case,
publicly correct me (and if I have, let me apologize right now.  We
are both in the _business_ of promoting Ada, so my intent isn't to
drastically piss you off :-)  

Finally, let me say that I have watched the presence of GNAT
dramatically increase exploration of Ada within the last year.  I
can't begin to tell you the _thousands_ of "fingers" I've had over
the last year (hmm, I guess I just did :-).  Many of those people
have picked up GNAT and were able to explore Ada without the
slightest financial committment.  And, yes, they knew they were
getting what they were paying for :-)  Also, GNAT has given me
leverage personally to address the issue of compiler cost overall.  I
am currently faced with a bill exceeding $200K from one of the
"major" compiler vendors.  Because a computer company has committed
to the GNAT compiler, I'm able to use that as leverage to reduce the
overall unit price of my current vendor.  Will that put them out of
business?  Definitely not.  Is this an example of how a "free"
government-funded compiler is hurting the Ada business?  It depends
on how you look at it.  I don't think so.  One of the amazing things
GNAT has done is made Ada "just another programming language".  That
is totally counter to how we positioned Ada in the 80's.  Frankly, I
like what GNAT is doing to the business.  Yes, you as an Ada business
will have to either adapt or leave.  I don't see anything wrong with
that, I already know of two "non-Ada" companies that are seriously
considering _entering_ the market now because of what GNAT has done.  I
continue to see GNAT as a postive force in our community.  

-- 
      Frustrated with C, C++, Pascal, Fortran?  Ada95 _might_ be for you!
	  For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command:
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
		if u cn rd ths, u r gd enuf to chg to Ada   :-)

Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)

[Rajat Datta]

I do wonder though, at why gcc and g++ have not put a damper on the C and C++
markets despite far greater acceptance in the commercial computing world than
Gnat.  Commercial chip companies pay to get gcc and g++ ported to their
architecture and don't feel like they're paying homage to the late, great USSR.

What Ada needs is what Borland did for C a long time ago.  The bar is a lot
higher now than it was back then, but what hasn't changed is the requirement
that it be cheap.  The $49 price back then was almost a throwaway price, and
maybe the market would tolerate $100 price right now.

rajat

Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)

[Tore Joergensen]

Jim Dorman (jimd@pcada.com) wrote:
[deleted]
: GNAT may have some new Ada9X features, but so does Janus Ada's new
: compiler. GNAT's got nothing else -- no high-level libraries like
: IntegrAda for Windows, no GUI builder like Visual Ada. It's not
: validated. It's easy to break with real source code, and there's
: no-one to call when it does! 
[deleted]
The nice thing about GNAT is that the source-code is available, and that
everybody can port it to other operating systems if they want to (and have
the neccessary knowledge). I am not interested in Ada for windows. I use
OS/2 and want an Ada95 compiler for OS/2. If I could get a commercial one
with a good PM-library, a good debugger and new & better versions coming
out every now and then, that would be great! But I am not converting
to Microsofts toy-operating system just because there isn't any commercial
OS/2 Ada95 compilers around (If anybody can tell me that there is really
a commercial high quality Ada95 compiler for OS/2 (That costs less than
$1000) I will be happy). In fact, I would rather use C++ than MS Windows! 

[deleted]
: It seems to me that this government-sponsored playground of free
: software and cyber-bitching about commercial Ada products and
: vendors is both infantile and extraordinarily dangerous to the very
: companies that we must have to support our mission critical systems
: in the future...and they are nearly all gone!
[deleted]
: John Galt
It also makes some people stay with Ada95 instead of jumping over to C++.
For the moment, I am only doing assignments/projects in Ada95, so I can
live with GNAT and work around the problems. However, I would love to
have a compiler/environment that didn't look ugly compared to what C++
programmers can buy, and I would buy it if it was for OS/2 and not to
expensive. 

[deleted]
: I'm out here to make a living. I have no government contract paying
: my salary or expenses, and I don't have time  to read every message
: posted on comp.lang.ada. I offer a variety of Ada products from
: multiple vendors, including some of my own, but I have never seen
: positive comments about commercial Ada products that did have a large
: dose of criticism included. Obviously, everything could be improved!
: But did anyone not buy a new car because the cigarette lighter was 
: round instead of square like you preferred? Did you not buy a box of
: Cheerios at the grocery store because you wanted the packing to be a
: light blue color instead of the standard yellow??
No, but I don't buy books written in spanish, since I can't read it. Do
you sell much/anything for OS/2?

: I think a better approach would be to support the vendors, advise them,
: not the world, of any product shortcomings and give them an opportunity
: to "fix or add" your personal pet item. Have we forgotten the old adage..

:   If you don't like it, tell me
:   If you do like it, tell the world
(psst... I don't like MS Windows) HI WORLD! I LIKE Ada95!!!

[deleted]
: Jim Dorman
: President
: Active Engineering
--
______________________________________________________________________
Tore B. Joergensen,    |    e-mail:     tore@lis.pitt.edu
a norwegian student    |    snail-mail: 2201 Pittockstr.
a long way from home.  |                Pittsburgh, 15217 PA
                       |    web:        http://www.pitt.edu/~tojst1

Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)

[Robert Dewar]

"I do wonder though, at why gcc and g++ have not put a damper on the C and C++
markets despite far greater acceptance in the commercial computing world than
Gnat.  Commercial chip companies pay to get gcc and g++ ported to their
architecture and don't feel like they're paying homage to the late, great USSR."

I don't particularly see why you would think that gcc/g++ should put a
damper on the market place. They are just one of many competitive products.
Cygnus aims at a fairly high point in the market, providing a good product
at a price that is reasonable for what you get, but certainly not in the
$50/$100 range (a typical price for Cygnus support per seat is $2500/year)

So Cygnus gets a share of the market, and so do many others. What gcc and
g++ certainly HAVE done, is to increase the use and acceptance of C in
universities, and that of course is the key to use.

In the case of Ada 95, I think by 1996 you will see some pretty lively
competition. By then GNAT will have some nice environments wrapped around
it on the PC and Mac, and the Intermetrics educational compiler will also
appear, presumably at a low, accessible price. Educational users will
hopefully be able to sit back and take advantage of this competition. I
don't know if others will enter this low price arena, but two is not
a bad value to stimulate some technical competition!

Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)

[Rajat Datta]

In article <dewar.798335596@gnat>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>"I do wonder though, at why gcc and g++ have not put a damper on the C and C++
>markets despite far greater acceptance in the commercial computing world than
>Gnat.  Commercial chip companies pay to get gcc and g++ ported to their
>architecture and don't feel like they're paying homage to the late, great USSR."
>
>I don't particularly see why you would think that gcc/g++ should put a
>damper on the market place. They are just one of many competitive products.
>...stuff deleted

Well, that was my point (no doubt badly expressed).  gcc and g++ have not
caused the kind of disruption in the C community that the original poster
was asserting GNAT is doing for Ada.  And, far from complaining about the
availability of a free compiler, commercial companies seem to find availability
of gcc to be an advantage.  Certainly the contribution list to gcc spans not
just companies like Cygnus that live off free software, but also "pure"
commercial companies like IBM, Intel, amongst others.

The argument of capitalism vs. socialism made by the original poster reminds
me of the tactics of comparing to Hitler and Nazism.  A variant of condemnation
by guilt of association.  Since your actions don't agree with my notion of
capitalism you must be--horrors--a communist.

>In the case of Ada 95, I think by 1996 you will see some pretty lively
>competition. By then GNAT will have some nice environments wrapped around
>it on the PC and Mac, and the Intermetrics educational compiler will also
>appear, presumably at a low, accessible price. Educational users will
>hopefully be able to sit back and take advantage of this competition. I
>don't know if others will enter this low price arena, but two is not
>a bad value to stimulate some technical competition!
>

But what will be the advantage of Ada that will make users sit up and take
notice?  C was not automatically embraced by all the commercial companies
when it became available, despite all the claims that it was so much better
than using assembler.  C succeeded because Unix and Borland slowly converted
a lot of programmers, one at a time, to using it.  C++ is seen as a better C
and so there's less resistance to switching to it.

How do you convince people that Ada is better than C?  Or even, that it is so
much better that it is worth the pain of converting?  Even though it is very
fashionable to decry the current state of software and how awful the bugs are,
it is a huge and profitable industry and is very successful.  It will not be
enough just to say that things stink and Ada is so much better.  Why is Ada
so much better?  I've only recently started looking at Ada (only because of
the availability of a free compiler, so that speaks well of GNAT, I think),
and have not yet seen why it's such a big difference.  That's not to say that
C isn't full of flaws (it is), or that C++ is so great (I'm not convinced of
that), or that PL/I was awful.

It is not surprising that with Java, the Sun folks are also releasing HotJava
and a host of other applications.  They know that to make Java successful they
must make it a "neat" language to switch to, and convince people that since
there are so many goodies available, it must be possible to program in it.
Otherwise, only compiler weenies/language groupies pay attention.

rajat

Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)

[Dale Pontius]

In article <3mjcci$gcg@news.znet.com>, Jim Dorman <jimd@pcada.com> writes:
>
> lots of stuff...
>
I'll acknowledge your points, but...

In the current craze of cost-cutting, capitalistic, corporate America
it can be awfully hard to buy a simple thing like a compiler. I said
this a month back, but I'll repeat it in this context.

I'm not a programmer, I just do some programming to enhance my 'real
job' productivity. I can no longer justify the purchase of a compiler
not supplied by the company. I have two relevant platforms to think
about, AIX/6000 and OS/2. The only company supplied compiler I can
get is C++. Even if I were a programmer, I would probably need to use
an 'approved' programming language, probably C++ in these days.

In this environment, If I want to stick with Wirth-style languages
or something in that flavor (Ada) I've got to shop the free circuits.

For Ada, my only choice is GNAT. As a matter of fact, GNU Pascal
may be the only other choice besides C/C++, and I suspect it's so
far out of vogue by now that it hasn't been ported to both AIX/6000
and OS/2.

C/C++ has swept the industry so pervasively that I suspect there
won't be a big compiler market anywhere else for some time. For now,
programming languages like Ada or Wirth-family are relegated to
'secret weapon' status, for software houses that want to bring out
less buggy, more maintainable software and aren't afraid to buck
trends to do it. (my opinion)

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)

Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)

[cjames]

In article <3n8930$ie8@twonky.btv.ibm.com>, <pontius@twonky.btv.ibm.com> writes:
:
:
> 
> For Ada, my only choice is GNAT. As a matter of fact, GNU Pascal
> may be the only other choice besides C/C++, and I suspect it's so
> far out of vogue by now that it hasn't been ported to both AIX/6000
> and OS/2.
> 

So this must mean that AIX/6000 Unix and OS/2 are the only OS's around.
What about NT ...

> C/C++ has swept the industry so pervasively that I suspect there
> won't be a big compiler market anywhere else for some time.

This is true ONLY in the US and Canada.  In Europe generally, and in France 
specifically, the language used on visible projects more than Ada or C++ combined 
is Eiffel.  But the IBM view of the world is to ignore others until they can't.
In fact, IBM was never really on the C++ or Unix bandwagon until it became 
obvious that the what the US market wanted.  Hence IBM tends to be a follower
(OS/2 was invented by MickeySoft, and AIX has tons of stuff in it identical to
any Linux freeware Unix, such as dopey screen savers) rather than a leader.

> ... (my opinion)
> 
> Dale Pontius
> (NOT speaking for IBM)
> 

Join the other bores with opinions from IBM who post here.  But better to work for 
IBM than to have a real job ...

Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)

[Robert Dewar]

The idea that Eiffel is more successful than C++ in Europe is wishful
thinking. I don't see any evidence that this is even vaguely true.

Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)

[CONDIC]

From: Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
Subject: Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)
Original_To:  PROFS%"SMTP@PWAGPDB"
Original_cc:  CONDIC



David Weller <dweller@STARBASE.NEOSOFT.COM> writes:
>
>the last year (hmm, I guess I just did :-).  Many of those people
>have picked up GNAT and were able to explore Ada without the
>slightest financial committment.  And, yes, they knew they were
>getting what they were paying for :-)  Also, GNAT has given me
>
    David:

    I personally think that GNAT may do a lot to help "bootstrap"
    Ada95 usage, but I think it's important to point out that it isn't
    real likely to cut into the commercial vendor's business - at
    least with respect to major software development efforts for
    critical products. It also isn't going to guarantee the long term
    success of Ada95 - so it's no panacea.

    Could you imagine persuading the Air Force to commit themselves to
    flight-certifying software or risking expensive payloads on a
    compiler that someone downloaded from the Internet and has no
    "corporate" support behind it? (Maybe in "the olden days" but not
    likely today!) Our customers *know* we need a vendor behind us as
    part of "the team" who is going to provide bug fixes, tools,
    customizations, etc.

    And even for "non-critical" applications, I would think that most
    intelligent developers would want a company behind their compiler
    who would provide them with telephone support, a commitment to
    continued growth of the product, related tools, etc. "Free" might
    be nice when you're just playing games, but when your business
    depends on long term commitments to the tools you use, "free" can
    get pretty costly! (O.K.! Not all things worth doing are worth
    doing well. I'm talking about software development that represents
    a significant investment in time, money & expected lifespan.)

    In other words - it's probably good that GNAT is out there as a
    learning tool, but I can't see it as a substitute for a good
    quality commercial product with lots of support software bundled
    around it and an "800" number to call when the software doesn't
    work as expected. Hence, it's probably not much of a threat to
    commercial vendors and if they see it that way, then they aren't
    looking at the value they should be adding to the product.

    As for cost? I still believe that if Ada95 is going to get
    anywhere, there needs to be a shrink-wrapped product at CompUSA
    with manuals, bindings, support tools, etc for popular home
    computers at somewhere between $200 and $400. (Best bet, is to get
    the base product under $200 and don't wuss out on the support!) If
    someone were to take GNAT and build such a product out of it,
    you'd stand a good chance of making it successful.

    The only sympathy I'll give to compiler vendors who charge five
    figures or more for their tools is when you start looking at
    target hardware that is extremely esoteric and have lots of
    requirements for customizations to the product. If there are only
    twelve "Gazorenthorpe Microprocessors" sold per year - but you
    absolutely have to have them because of the specialized nature of
    the product - *no* compiler is going to be cheap. (Maybe this is
    where Ada suffers from it's military roots? How many ATF's are we
    going to sell? How many "specialized" processors are in one of
    these? How many compilers does that mean we're going to buy?)

    (Oh. And before someone jumps up and says "You ought to be using
    COTS processors on this sort of stuff" I'll answer with this
    challenge: Show me a Mil packaged, rad hard, at-or-near 100%
    testable, space-proven, COTS processor - complete with ICE-boxes,
    logic analyzers, etc., that I can buy at Radio Shack for under
    $50.00 and I'll buy you dinner at the restaurant of your choice
    here in West Palm Beach.)

    Pax,
    Marin

Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer    ATT:        407.796.8997
M/S 731-93                                      Technet:    796.8997
Pratt & Whitney, GESP                           Internet:   CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
P.O. Box 109600                                 Internet:   MDCONDIC@AOL.COM
West Palm Beach, FL 33410-9600
===============================================================================
    Please send responses to one of the addresses in this trailer.
    A "reply" to the address in the message header will bounce.
===============================================================================
    "The cost of living has just gone up another dollar a quart."

        --  W. C. Fields
===============================================================================

Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)

[David Weller]

In article <INFO-ADA%95042115084536@VM1.NODAK.EDU>,
 <CONDIC@PSAVAX.PWFL.COM> wrote:
>From: Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
>Subject: Re: Ada saved by gnat (was Re: Where's Aetech?)
>Original_To:  PROFS%"SMTP@PWAGPDB"
>Original_cc:  CONDIC
>
>
>
>David Weller <dweller@STARBASE.NEOSOFT.COM> writes:
>>the last year (hmm, I guess I just did :-).  Many of those people
>>have picked up GNAT and were able to explore Ada without the
>>slightest financial committment.  And, yes, they knew they were
>>getting what they were paying for :-)  Also, GNAT has given me
>>
>    I personally think that GNAT may do a lot to help "bootstrap"
>    Ada95 usage, but I think it's important to point out that it isn't
>    real likely to cut into the commercial vendor's business - at
>    least with respect to major software development efforts for
>    critical products. It also isn't going to guarantee the long term
>    success of Ada95 - so it's no panacea.
>
Correct.  I could hardly claim it is.  It's "just another Ada95
compiler".  Yes, it raises the standard.  Over the long run, will it
be the leader?  I'd say no more than gcc is in the commercial market
(which is to say, they have a respectable slice, but nothing
overwhelmingly superior).  We both agree completely that GNAT is NO
THREAT to commercial businesses.  GNAT will, however, allow those
businesses to EXPAND their market (they're just not trying to
capitalize on that correctly, from what I'm seeing)

>    Could you imagine persuading the Air Force to commit themselves to
>    flight-certifying software or risking expensive payloads on a
>    compiler that someone downloaded from the Internet and has no
>    "corporate" support behind it? (Maybe in "the olden days" but not
>    likely today!) Our customers *know* we need a vendor behind us as
>    part of "the team" who is going to provide bug fixes, tools,
>    customizations, etc.
>
Right, that's why companies like Cygnus, ACT, and Labtek exist -- to
bring the "industrial strength" to free compilers.  However, as a
"decision maker" in my company, I have to look at MUCH more than just
cost to determine which compiler to choose.  Certification (or
certifiability) and performance are other drivers (to name a couple).

>    In other words - it's probably good that GNAT is out there as a
>    learning tool, but I can't see it as a substitute for a good
>    quality commercial product with lots of support software bundled
>    around it and an "800" number to call when the software doesn't
>    work as expected. Hence, it's probably not much of a threat to
>    commercial vendors and if they see it that way, then they aren't
>    looking at the value they should be adding to the product.
>
Yup.  Although I hasten to add that I've found faster "support" for
gcc stuff through the gnu.* hierarchy than I've typically had from
some other vendors (MickeySoft comes to mind immediately).

>    As for cost? I still believe that if Ada95 is going to get
>    anywhere, there needs to be a shrink-wrapped product at CompUSA
>    with manuals, bindings, support tools, etc for popular home
>    computers at somewhere between $200 and $400. (Best bet, is to get
>    the base product under $200 and don't wuss out on the support!) If
>    someone were to take GNAT and build such a product out of it,
>    you'd stand a good chance of making it successful.
>
Yes, and I hope that folks like Jim Dorman can do just that (despite
my grousing at Jim, I _do_ have hope that his (and all) Ada95 product
is a smashing success).

Pax right back to ya :-)


-- 
      Frustrated with C, C++, Pascal, Fortran?  Ada95 _might_ be for you!
	  For all sorts of interesting Ada95 tidbits, run the command:
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
		if u cn rd ths, u r gd enuf to chg to Ada   :-)