Re: Ada used in General Aviation (GA) applications?

["Richard Riehle" <adaworks@earthlink.net>]

> You could ask, but the answer is "No - but we'll let you pay to develop
> it and you can wait a year to get it." You're absolutely right on this
> score. *NOBODY* is going to pay a vendor and wait for the privilege of
> using Ada. They're going to select their board/chip and they're going to
>   use whatever compilers/development environments are available for that
> hardware. If Ada isn't sitting on the shelf waiting to be bought, then
> Ada doesn't play.

Ada compiler publishers have been dwelling in the DoD world for such
a long time that any tendency toward entrepreneurialism has vanished.
I talked to one DoD contractor's management a few years ago and
suggested they had an opportunity to enter a marketplace (not with
Ada, but other skills) and become successful in that market.  Their
response, "But who is going to fund it?"

There is a risk associated with any new venture.   Entrepreneurs tend
to be driven by their vision, their dedication to that vision, and their
unwavering confidence that it is a vision with commercial value.  At
one time, before the wimps took charge, Aonix seemed almost ready
to pursue that kind of vision.

Among those who have grown up in the DoD contracting world, courage
seems in short supply.  Some of the people who build tools for Ada
don't use their own Ada compilers and tools for building their other
products.    I don't need to identify those companies.  They know who
they are.  However, they don't have a sense of how ashamed they
should be of their lack of vision, lack of courage, and lack of
entrepreneurial will.

"We will only build a product if someone asks for it," is not a particularly
good business strategy.   One can keep a company alive, for a while, using
that strategy, but it is not a sustainable posture.   Entrepreneurs are
constantly
trying to find new markets, not simply cling to existing ones.

There have been a few examples of risk takers in the Ada industry.  RR
Software comes to mind.  Meridian comes to mind.   OC Systems.
There are a few others.  The fact that these have not been a resounding
success has acted as a deterrent for others.   One of the companies that
had a chance to make Ada popular, Rational, flubbed that opportunity.
I don't know if it was inept management,  lack of courage, or just being
too busy to put any energy into seeking commercial success for Ada.
Whatever it was, the language product that got them started, Ada,
seems to have vanished from Rational's main marketing thrust.

The only companies that actively and energetically market their Ada
products, at present, seem to be ACT and DDC-I.  Every month,
I get a newsletter from DDC-I that updates me on what they are
doing, customer news, product news, and even a little column by
a guest writer.  No other Ada compiler publisher takes the trouble
to do anything like that.   If you want to be on their distribution, I
suggest you send  them an email.  They are quite easy to deal
with on such matters.

Marin is correct when he suggests that the only way to make Ada
successful is for people to being creating products that use it.  We
can whine about the fact that more people are not choosing it, we
can complain about the stupidity of the LM management on JSF,
we can wring our hands about the downside of abrogating the
mandate.   None of that is worth much.    What is worth a lot
is for those who know and love Ada to build commercial products
using it.  Sell your shrink-wrapped Ada application to the general
marketplace.  Let people know you used Ada for development.
Once we have those kind of successes, Ada can stand on its own
and will be recognized for the value it actually provides.

Richard Riehle