Re: Proving Correctness (was Java Portability)

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen <ohk@clustra.com>]

Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:

> Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen <ohk@clustra.com> writes:
> 
> > I have to agree with Nicolas here. Please observe that he IS
> > committing money by buying compilers. To pay for library development
> > is pretty unheard of in the commercial world. Paying for the finished
> > library is another thing, of course.
> 
> How is that different? Part of the profit from sales of Library 1 is
> used to pay for developing Library 2. At least, it is in any company
> that wants to stay in business.
> 

Yes, but that's OK. I pay for something now, GET THE GOODS, and you
use the revenue to develop something better for the future. This is
substantially different from paying you now, and you promise to deliver
me something in the future.

> Again, it's a matter of scale. A company that sells 1 million copies
> of its library can charge very little per copy for developing the next
> one. Unfortunately, no Ada companies have sales in that range.
> 
> > The bottom line is that each language and compiler has its
> > advantages and disadvantages, including (but not limited to) price,
> > availability, support, and libraries. Choosing one is a (not always)
> > simple cost/benefit analysis.
> 
> True.
> 
> > Customers don't usually hang around to argue, the just go somewhere
> > else if they cannot find what they're looking for.
> 
> Or offer to pay for what they need, when they can't find it.
> 
> -- 
> -- Stephe

In which case the vendor is merely a contractor, and the customer owns
the product, if they have any business sense at all.

-- 
Kabelsalat ist gesund.

Ole-Hj. Kristensen