Re: Ada is not a failure.

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[Robert Dewar]

My goodness, TH is back. I probably wouldn't have noticed but when we
installed a new mail system, all the old kill files got lost. Actually
if TH is back online, I think I'll wait a bit before updating the old
kill list. Might be interesting to see TH and GA conducting a "debate" :-)

Re: ADA IS NOT A FAILURE.

[cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexa]

>  I can't agree with you here John, development costs are not "sunk".  Every
>   3 R&D venture I've ever been associated with or heard of, has a "break-even
"
>   3 point, which is calculated up front.  The development team, or champion, 
or
>   3 manager (it varies with company) *MUST* break even by a particular date o
r
>   3 have their head(s) handed to them by the backers (e.g. the Board of
>   3 Directors).  

So what's your point?  The fact that the bad decision is made by the board
of directors does not elminate the fact that a bad decision has been made.

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[Michael Shapiro]

mzwick@vitro.com (Morris J. Zwick) writes:
(regarding the cost of software development being a "sunk cost")
> 
/
> usual? Easy, because you could never sell enough to cover your costs of
> development and production. Why on earth would you invest money into somethin
> where the management says "We need $x million to develop this software. Our
> plans are to sell it at some price regardless of development costs."? If
> someone risks money, they expect a return on their investment. Otherwise, why
> invest? The gamble continues until you WIN or LOSE, not when you place the be
> on the table.
> 

A significant difference between hardware (like a car) and software is
the manufacturing cost.  Development cost itself may be similar.  If 
you're really interested in these differences, I suggest you find my 
article "Software is a product . . . NOT!" in the September 1992 IEEE 
Computer magazine (p. 128).  For reasons I discuss in the paper, I feel 
we can understand software economics much better if we treat it as a
SERVICE, not a PRODUCT.  If management accepts this attitude, I believe 
that all the aspects of the life-cycle of software become easier to 
understand and plan.

--                    
INTERNET:  mshapiro@netlink.nix.com (Michael Shapiro)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!mshapiro
Network Information eXchange * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115

Re: ADA IS NOT A FAILURE.

[Morris J. Zwick]

In article <CBHxsB.5p2@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> willett@cbnewsl.cb.att.com
(david.c.willett) writes:
>	The break-even point I mentioned earlier is the point on the 
>time vs. unit sales graph where *all* the projected R&D costs would be paid
>back.  From then on, the product makes a profit.  Clearly, the unit price 
>the market will bear for the product has a great deal to do with where the
>break even point ends up.  Quite a bit of the "SWAG" part of unit pricing
>goes into setting the price the market will bear.  Doing the job well requires
>a keen understanding of one's potential market.  It is in that understanding
>of potential markets for small-platform Ada compilers that the Ada vendors
>probably missed the boat.

Or that, given their risk/reward comfort levels, should not have even opted to
ride on any boat. PC software has a far lower comfort level because of the low
prices that the market will bear. To be successful, you either must have or
must generate a significant market for your product. Could the Ada vendors do
that by themselves without risking a pile of money? I doubt it.

         ___________________________________________________________________
        /  Morris J. Zwick	                 Internet: mzwick@vitro.com
__     /   Vitro Corporation	             Voice:    (301) 231-2784
  \   /    14000 Georgia Ave.                ___________________________
   \ /     Silver Spring, MD 20906-2972      |"I don't want the world; |
    *                                        | I just want your half!" |
                                             |  - They Might Be Giants |

Re: ADA IS NOT A FAILURE.

[david.c.willett]

>From article <7.1289.238.0N54F073@cld9.sccsi.com>, by michael.hagerty@cld9.scc
si.com (Michael Hagerty):
> On Fri, 6 Aug 1993, David C Willett responded to John Doner:
> 
> DC3 I can't agree with you here John, development costs are not "sunk".  Ever
y
>   3 R&D venture I've ever been associated with or heard of, has a "break-even
"
>   3 point, which is calculated up front.  The development team, or champion, 
or
>   3 manager (it varies with company) *MUST* break even by a particular date o
r
>   3 have their head(s) handed to them by the backers (e.g. the Board of
>   3 Directors).  
> 
> Small nit, here...  Costs, commonly divided up into fixed and variable (where
> development usually goes into the "fixed" category), are usually not related
> to price, except that the per copy variable costs should not exceed the 
> price.  The concept of "break-even" is very subjective and is usually driven
> by formulae based upon SWAGs...
> 
> Regards, Mikey <michael.hagerty@nitelog.com>
> ---
>  ~ MR/2 1.52 #63 ~ I can quit anytime I want; I just don't want to!
>  ~ R109U:~ Usenet ~ Nitelog BBS ~ Monterey CA ~ 408-655-1096       

Responding to the nit......

	There are many ways accountants & managers classify costs (after all,
it's their job and their culture -- e.g. Eskimos have hundreds of words for 
snow...)  so I think using simply "fixed" and "variable" is, well.... too
simple.

	I've heard the terms "recurring" and "non-recurring" used in 
connection with R&D funding.  Non-recurring costs usually refer to the 
"price of admission" into the research area (e.g. lab assets, software tools,
CM systems, etc.), whereas "recurring" costs usually refer to the "price
per feature" (e.g. "What if we put a Windows interface on it?").

	The break-even point I mentioned earlier is the point on the 
time vs. unit sales graph where *all* the projected R&D costs would be paid
back.  From then on, the product makes a profit.  Clearly, the unit price 
the market will bear for the product has a great deal to do with where the
break even point ends up.  Quite a bit of the "SWAG" part of unit pricing
goes into setting the price the market will bear.  Doing the job well requires
a keen understanding of one's potential market.  It is in that understanding
of potential markets for small-platform Ada compilers that the Ada vendors
probably missed the boat.

-- 
Dave Willett          AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies
Shoulda been a cowboy/Shoulda learned to rope & ride/Wearing my six-shooter/
Ridin' my pony -- on a cattle drive!!!    Stealin' a young girl's heart/
Just like Gene & Roy/Singnin' them campfire songs/ Shoulda been a cowboy.....

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[Morris J. Zwick]

In article <23s4tl$9ni@news.aero.org> doner@aero.org (John Doner) writes:
>In article <1993Jul27.134205.7881@vitro.com> mzwick@vitro.com (Morris J.
Zwick) writes:
>>In article <1993Jul25.065103.19504@hellgate.utah.edu>
>>matwood%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Mark Atwood) writes:
>>>
>>>True, your LEAP program makes a stab at it, but it took an Ada vendor too
>>>long to realize what nearly every other software vendor knows, the schools
>>>are what will sell you.  (And don't tell me about "finantial realities".
>>>Once you have the thing developed, it's next to free to copy and distribute
>>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>This argument is specious. How do you expect to recover the costs of
developing
>>the software if you don't ask a high enough price? The real problem with Ada
>>prices is the (at least cuurently) small market for selling the compilers.
>>Economies of scale do not enter the fray, therefore the development costs are
>>recovered over fewer copies of the product.
>
>Really?  Not so, usually.  Development costs are sunk costs.  You invested
>(i.e., gambled) your money and time up front.  Once the product is there, you
>want to make the most you can from it.  You want every dime you can get from

If this were the case, why not price cars at $100 and sell a ton more than
usual? Easy, because you could never sell enough to cover your costs of
development and production. Why on earth would you invest money into something
where the management says "We need $x million to develop this software. Our
plans are to sell it at some price regardless of development costs."? If
someone risks money, they expect a return on their investment. Otherwise, why
invest? The gamble continues until you WIN or LOSE, not when you place the bet
on the table.

Are development costs a "sunk cost"? In a sense that you spent it, sure. In a
financial sense, sunk costs are costs that have no bearing on a financial
decision because of their inapplicability/relevance to the decision.
Development costs are fixed costs of production and are, therefore, very
important to the pricing decision. Development costs ARE NOT sunk costs!!! The
reason why Symantec and Borland sell their compilers for so little is that the
markets for Turbo Pascal and C/C++ are significantly larger that Ada's. Their
fixed costs (ie. the development costs, plant, equipment) are distributed over
a larger number of units. As you hint, in software, the variable costs of
production are very small compared to fixed costs. That does not mean that the
fixed costs are not important!!!

Now, one can argue that the companies should do more to expand the market for
Ada. This would include a combination of broad-based advertising, lower prices,
and "marketing" to educational institutions and other important "barometric"
groups (IEEE, etc.). These things cost money. As an investor, you must balance
the risk against the reward. I can tell you that defense-sector companies are
extremely risk averse. I suspect that Ada vendors, which are on the periphery
of this group, share a good deal of this aversion. Are they right or wrong?
Neither; from their perspective, they are pursuing a level of risk they are
comfortable with.

>A few years ago, Meridian came out with an Ada compiler and development system
>for the Macintosh.  The price was in the thousands.  I laughed.  How could
>anyone be so totally oblivious of the realities of the marketplace into which
>they were selling?  Think C for the Mac, also an excellent development
>environment, was selling for under $100 in the education market and not much

Was Meridian trying to capture Symantec's market, or were they pursuing a niche
market for Mac Ada compilers required for DoD projects, plus others who wanted
to develop in Ada? I suspect the latter. The Meridian product (which I bought
when the price went down) was not in the same league as Think C (nor is it
now). For Meridian to compete, their compiler had to at least have the same
features and quality level of the Symantec compiler, plus have enough marketing
push and development community pull to convince customers to buy the Meridian
compiler. I suspect all of this would have cost a lot more, and Symantec would
not have stood still while Meridian tried to capture its market. Could it be
done? Maybe, but you would be betting a significant sum of money (risk) to find
out. Would you, as an investor, bet your money on this? I sure as Hell
wouldn't!!

>price it low and sell tens of thousands of copies.  Ask Borland or Symantec.
>Eventually, Meridian evidently realized this and their prices came down.  But
>they may have been too late.

I bet if the Meridian compiler cost $50, they wouldn't outsell Symantec. The
market is JUST NOT THERE!! While Greg's rantings can be irritating, he has a
good point; how can you expect the language to succeed by just establishing
some mandate? Ada needs to be sold to people, not forced down their throats. I
have used Ada, and I love it. No mandate required me to come to this decision.
Alas, governments seem to always pursue this tactic. Prohibition, drug laws,
gun laws, even sodomy laws (none of which I'm defending or attacking) were all
attempts by the government to control behavior. Educational campaigns against
drunk driving seem to have done more to stop drunk drivers than any prohibition
could have. Ada needs a market, not a mandate!!

These views are, of course, my own.

         ___________________________________________________________________
        /  Morris J. Zwick	                 Internet: mzwick@vitro.com
__     /   Vitro Corporation	             Voice:    (301) 231-2784
  \   /    14000 Georgia Ave.                ___________________________
   \ /     Silver Spring, MD 20906-2972      |"I don't want the world; |
    *                                        | I just want your half!" |
                                             |  - They Might Be Giants |

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[Robert Dewar]

John Doner says "The way to make money in the personal computer market is
to price low and sell lots of copies" or words to that effect, and suggests
we look at Borland.

I think it's a good idea to look at Borland. What you will find is a company
whose stock has plummeted and which is in pretty shaky shape, at least partly
because they believed in the low price approach too long.

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!att-out!cbn]

>From article <23s4tl$9ni@news.aero.org>, by doner@aero.org (John Doner):

	{Stuff deleted}
> 
> Really?  Not so, usually.  Development costs are sunk costs.  You invested
> (i.e., gambled) your money and time up front.  Once the product is there, you
> want to make the most you can from it.  You want every dime you can get from
> it, and it makes no difference what it cost you to reach the point you are at
> now.  The real problem is vendors not understanding this, and behaving as
> though the marketplace "owed" them they money they spent.
> 
> A few years ago, Meridian came out with an Ada compiler and development syste
m
> for the Macintosh.  The price was in the thousands.  I laughed.  How could
> anyone be so totally oblivious of the realities of the marketplace into which
> they were selling?  Think C for the Mac, also an excellent development
> environment, was selling for under $100 in the education market and not much
> more retail.  The way to make money in the personal computer market was to
> price it low and sell tens of thousands of copies.  Ask Borland or Symantec.
> Eventually, Meridian evidently realized this and their prices came down.  But
> they may have been too late.
> 
> John Doner

I can't agree with you here John, development costs are not "sunk".  Every
R&D venture I've ever been associated with or heard of, has a "break-even"
point, which is calculated up front.  The development team, or champion, or
manager (it varies with company) *MUST* break even by a particular date or
have their head(s) handed to them by the backers (e.g. the Board of
Directors).  

I do agree that Meridian's original pricing for the Mac system indicates 
that their calculation of its "break-even" point was questionable :^).
One thing that I haven't heard mentioned is the market forecasts the 
vendors used for their pricing.  If they depended on DoD contractors
converting to COTS, their forecasts aren't so wild.  Typically, that
kind of information is tightly held, so I don't think we'll ever know
what drove the pricing.

-- 
Dave Willett          AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies
If you want to know --- ASK!  -- Linda Ellerbee

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.aero.o]

In article <1993Jul27.134205.7881@vitro.com> mzwick@vitro.com (Morris J. Zwick)
 writes:
>In article <1993Jul25.065103.19504@hellgate.utah.edu>
>matwood%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Mark Atwood) writes:
>>
>>True, your LEAP program makes a stab at it, but it took an Ada vendor too
>>long to realize what nearly every other software vendor knows, the schools
>>are what will sell you.  (And don't tell me about "finantial realities".
>>Once you have the thing developed, it's next to free to copy and distribute
>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>This argument is specious. How do you expect to recover the costs of developin
g
>the software if you don't ask a high enough price? The real problem with Ada
>prices is the (at least cuurently) small market for selling the compilers.
>Economies of scale do not enter the fray, therefore the development costs are
>recovered over fewer copies of the product.

Really?  Not so, usually.  Development costs are sunk costs.  You invested
(i.e., gambled) your money and time up front.  Once the product is there, you
want to make the most you can from it.  You want every dime you can get from
it, and it makes no difference what it cost you to reach the point you are at
now.  The real problem is vendors not understanding this, and behaving as
though the marketplace "owed" them they money they spent.

A few years ago, Meridian came out with an Ada compiler and development system
for the Macintosh.  The price was in the thousands.  I laughed.  How could
anyone be so totally oblivious of the realities of the marketplace into which
they were selling?  Think C for the Mac, also an excellent development
environment, was selling for under $100 in the education market and not much
more retail.  The way to make money in the personal computer market was to
price it low and sell tens of thousands of copies.  Ask Borland or Symantec.
Eventually, Meridian evidently realized this and their prices came down.  But
they may have been too late.

John Doner

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[agate!library.ucla.edu!ddsw1!news.kei.com!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!math.ohio-]

In article <12692.744384496@blackbird> munck@STARS.Reston.Paramax.COM writes:
>In INFO-ADA Digest V93 #496, pipex!sunic!news.lth.se!dag@uunet.uu.net
>  (Dag Bruck) said:
>
>>>... C/C++ has gained entrenchment as a market "standard", and
>>>actually serves as an impediment to progress through monopolization.  
>>
>>Isn't that what the "Ada mandate" has been criticised for...?
>
>Oh, no.  Most of the criticism of Ada seen in this forum are due
>to the fact that the Ada Mandate has somehow kept Greg Aharonian
>from getting a steady job.  
>
Yo, Bob! Greg can be kinda strident, and sometimes immature in hanging
on to an issue long after we've gotten the point, but I think this
personal slur on him is a bit out of place, don't you think? Greg may
overdo it sometimes, but his points about big bucks and small payoffs
in the reuse business are well taken, and you know it.

I really think we can all live without ad hominem attacks. Let's try to
be decent journalist-type people here. Public authority figures like
Tuttle and Paige and Mosemann are fair game if we are criticizing
them for public statements or non-statements. Greg goes after them
mercilessly for what he calls hypocrisy. I can think of a lot of words
for the way DoD works; hypocrisy is too kind sometimes. But I'd
rather stick to generic, not personal, flames. Maybe you and Greg can,
too. This is embarrassing.

Enough.

Mike Feldman

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[munck]

In INFO-ADA Digest V93 #496, pipex!sunic!news.lth.se!dag@uunet.uu.net
  (Dag Bruck) said:

>>... C/C++ has gained entrenchment as a market "standard", and
>>actually serves as an impediment to progress through monopolization.  
>
>Isn't that what the "Ada mandate" has been criticised for...?

Oh, no.  Most of the criticism of Ada seen in this forum are due
to the fact that the Ada Mandate has somehow kept Greg Aharonian
from getting a steady job.  

Bob Munck

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[Woody Meeker]

     So much of Ted Holden's post is false and intentionally inflammatory, that
 
it isn't worth refuting his statements line by line.  There are a couple of
points worth noting, however.

     The commercial success of C/C++ as a measure of its technical superiority 
over Ada has roughly the same validity as the commercial success of DOS/Windows
as a measure of technical superiority over OS/2, i.e. none.  In fact, the
relationship is inverse.  The truth of the matter is that, like DOS, C/C++ has
gained entrenchment as a market "standard", and actually serves as an impedi-
ment to progress through monopolization.  This does not stop its proponents 
from drawing the self-serving conclusion that success equals superiority.

     A second point worth noting is that the title of the thread, "Ada is not 
a failure.", is representative of a defensive attitude that seems to prevail 
among Ada users and proponents.  I certainly don't subscribe to Holden's
assertion that denial equals guilt, but defensiveness often sounds like guilt.

     Ada proponents (myself included) ought to recognize that language bias 
most often springs from language familiarity, and that religious flame wars do 
nothing to diminish anti-Ada bias.  The problem of Ada acceptance is a 3 stage
catch 22:

     1. Programmers (and indirectly project managers) do anything possible to
        avoid the use of Ada, even for DoD projects, because they are familiar
        with and comfortable with their own language.

     2. DoD implements a mandate, intended to enforce Ada use.  This should
        force programmers to gain familiarity with Ada and help to overcome 
        the problem of acceptance.

     3. The programmer cops an attitude as a result of the mandate, and becomes
        even more determined not to accept Ada.  If he is forced to use it, he
        does so grudgingly, continuing the paradigm of his old language, and 
        finding the new restrictions inconvenient.  He uses this experience as
        an example of the difficulty of using Ada.  Back to stage 1.

     Recognition of the nature of this problem doesn't solve it, but it should
help Ada proponents to take a less defensive posture.  Let's ignore the flames
and anti-Ada biases and try to educate (God, I sound like a liberal) the non-
Ada partisans.  I especially enjoy conversion stories (e.g. how Ada saved my
ass after another language failed me, etc).

				    Woody



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%  Woody Meeker                                      [][][][][][][][][][][][]  
%
%  Martin Marietta ESC, Orlando FL                 [] w o o d y[][][][][][][]  
%
%  Voice:[407] 356-8839/5940                       [][][][][][] m e e k e r[]  
%
%  Email: Woody-Meeker@orl.mmc.com                 [][][][][][][][][][][][]    
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
"Before software can be reusable it first has to be usable." - Ralph Johnson

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[news]

Richard Nixon said it best and said it first:

I am not a crook!

The fact that the guy had to make the statement told the entire story.

Same with the "Ada is not a failure..." thread here.

What's your definition of a failure?

Take Ada for example.  The story begins in 1980 with Charles Hoare, one of
the world's formost computer scientists, using the occasion of his receipt
of the Turing award at the AACM to publically state that Ada is an unsafe
language and implore Americans not to use it in anything with serious
consequences.

Then you have ten years worth of horror stories in journals, all basically
describing intelligent people spending 15 hours working around Ada and one
hour attempting to solve their problem.  That is no way to live.

Next you have the Adawoe BBS.  They put that there to collect what they
figured would be a few minor glitches to fix with 9X;  instead, they got
hundreds of horrific accounts of total disaster caused by the inability
of the Ada language to function on the most basic levels.

Finally, we have the father of Ada, Dr. Ichbiah, doing a Pontius Pilate
and claiming that the 9X effort is a disaster, the people involved with
it a bunch of clowns, and that he does not want his name associated with
it any longer.

At no point in any of this have any serious people ever shown the least
interest in Ada.  The American software development community has
irrevocably standardized on C/C++ and none of your major players,
such as Borland, Symantec, or MicroSoft has even bothered to write an
Ada compiler.  I asked Philippe Kahn about this once at a meeting of the
DC area CPCUG, and he replied that there was no reasonable way to
implement an Ada compiler, i.e. the language itself was FUBAR.

All of this meets my definitely of failure, total failure, abject
humiliating failure, in spades.

The handwriting is on the wall.  Anybody who has been involved with Ada
would be spectacularly well advised to begin looking for an honest job
now.





-- 
Ted Holden
HTE

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[Wes Groleau X7574]

In article <23541k$jja@nic.lth.se> dag@control.lth.se (Dag Bruck) writes:
>............... I was under the impression that software reliability
>in critical applications is primarily governed by the organization of
>the software development process, so applications written in assembly

Close.  The process ATTEMPTS to govern the reliability.  Just like our
political leaders ATTEMPT to govern us.  But we still have drunk drivers.
Now to  r e a l l y  stretch the analogy, do you suppose there might be
fewer of them in jurisdictions that prohibit alcoholic beverages?

Which is more dangerous: a drunk driver, or a bug in the software installed
in every brand X airplane?  (A bug that slipped past testing due to using
language Z; a bug that would never have slipped past an Ada compiler.)

>language need not be less safe than those written in Ada (stretching
>my case, I know); the main motivation for using Ada is the *cost* of
>developing applications with inferior languages.

Cost is part of it, reliability is the other.  Cost is of course higher because
more testing is needed in some languages to get almost the same reliability.

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[Dag Bruck]

In <comp.lang.ada> bwallet@apssgi.nswc.navy.mil (Brad Wallet) writes:
>
>and i am glad...i don't like the idea of trusting my life to a
>program written in c.

You can't be too happy :-)

Now, seriously: I was under the impression that software reliability
in critical applications is primarily governed by the organization of
the software development process, so applications written in assembly
language need not be less safe than those written in Ada (stretching
my case, I know); the main motivation for using Ada is the *cost* of
developing applications with inferior languages.


				-- Dag

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[Brad Wallet]

In article <EMERY.93Jul26085114@goldfinger.mitre.org>, emery@goldfinger.mitre.o
rg (David Emery) writes:
|> I'd rather Ada be used in a couple of important domains, than widely
|> used where it doesn't count.  In particular, I'm very proud of the
|> fact that Ada is the dominant language for both Air Traffic Control
|> and avionics.  With those two successes, I don't care what Microsoft
|> codes in...
|> 				dave

and i am glad...i don't like the idea of trusting my life to a
program written in c.

brad

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[Morris J. Zwick]

In article <1993Jul25.065103.19504@hellgate.utah.edu>
matwood%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Mark Atwood) writes:
>
>True, your LEAP program makes a stab at it, but it took an Ada vendor too
>long to realize what nearly every other software vendor knows, the schools
>are what will sell you.  (And don't tell me about "finantial realities".
>Once you have the thing developed, it's next to free to copy and distribute
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This argument is specious. How do you expect to recover the costs of developing
the software if you don't ask a high enough price? The real problem with Ada
prices is the (at least cuurently) small market for selling the compilers.
Economies of scale do not enter the fray, therefore the development costs are
recovered over fewer copies of the product.

Now one could argue that these Ada vendors could "invest" money into developing
their market by offering their products at a lower cost and advertising to
enlarge their market, and thereby lowering their margins. However, remembering
that all of this started out in the DoD marketplace, where vendors are
EXTREMELY risk averse, it comes as no surprise that the vendors are not willing
to bet these up front costs on the language's eventual success.

Which leads to another question: Are language wars won by costs, merit
(including technical superiority), decree, or some combination? Clearly the
fact that C/C++ have become popular does not vouch for pure merit being the
primary success factor. I do not believe anyone has a total grip on why certain
languages are more successful than others; I await an empirical study to find
answers anxiously.

         ___________________________________________________________________
        /  Morris J. Zwick	                 Internet: mzwick@vitro.com
__     /   Vitro Corporation	             Voice:    (301) 231-2784
  \   /    14000 Georgia Ave.                ___________________________
   \ /     Silver Spring, MD 20906-2972      |"I don't want the world; |
    *                                        | I just want your half!" |
                                             |  - They Might Be Giants |

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.]

In article <231hgm$sll@usafa2.usafa.af.mil> cwarack@kirk.usafa.af.mil (Chris Wa
rack <sys mgr>) writes:

>I can think of several others on the decline besides Fortran and Cobol --
>Jovial, CMS-2, Atlas ...
>
>-- 
>Christopher A. Warack, Capt, USAF
>Computer Science Department, US Air Force Academy
>
>cwarack@kirk.usafa.af.mil                (719) 472-2401


Please add ALGOL, which Capt. Warack's predecessors taught me at the
bad ol' USAFA 20 years ago (key punches and all :/  ).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Mark Shanks                          |           
| Principal Engineer                   |    All opinions mine,  
| 777 Displays                         |        of course.
| shanks@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com   |          
| "We have such sights to show you..." |            
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[agate!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!csn!news.usafa.af.mil!kirk!cwara]

In article <dt4.743671381@persimmon>, dt4@persimmon.ucsb.edu (David E. Goggin) 
writes:
|> tne@world.std.com (Thomas N Erickson) writes:
|> 
|> >Nevertheless, it should not be considered a failure.  It is one of the few
|> >programming languages GROWING in use and there are several very successful
|> >applications (both military and civilian).
|> 
|> A nitpick here:  I think that even the most obscure languages are growing --
|> if language X had 10 people who knew it last year and 20 that know it
|> this year then its growing.  The languages that are not growing are
|> probably Fortran and Cobol -- even these are doubtful (my alma mater is
|> still cranking out engineers having taken the required Fortran course.)
|> 
|> *dt*

Well, at HOPL2 Guy Steele indicated that Lisp was on the decline.  I also
remember Jean Sammet saying something to the effect that only a fraction of
the languages that have existed are being used at all...  Which languages
fit X besides Ada, C++, and Smalltalk.  Oberon?

I can think of several others on the decline besides Fortran and Cobol --
Jovial, CMS-2, Atlas ...

-- 
Christopher A. Warack, Capt, USAF
Computer Science Department, US Air Force Academy

cwarack@kirk.usafa.af.mil                (719) 472-2401

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!news.den.mmc.com!iplmail]

Greg Aharonian (srctran@world.std.com) wrote in response to a vendor's
self-congratulatory remarks:

: Better promote Ada?  How about getting your Telesoft subsidiary to
: start sticking the phrase "Ada" into its ads.  That would be a good
: start.  Cooperating with ASA and AJPO?  Where have you guys been in
: the last seven years?  Ways not previously tried?  Geesh, there are
: dozens of ways of getting more attention for Ada that should have
: been done years ago.  How about
[suggestions deleted]

How about getting someone inside to write articles for programmers' rags
(like Dr. Dobb's Journal).  As Greg pointed out some weeks ago, DDJ is a
C*-oriented magazine.  While this is true, articles are accepted
regularly about other languages.  The magazine is written largely by its
readers.  Howsabout something from the GNAT types about grafting 9x onto
the GNU back end?  Or from a vendor explaining a really difficult
concept and giving code in Ada for solving it.  Or from an educator
who's qualified to explain that chasing down pointer references isn't
really a sign of virility.

Historical note:  When I began taking `the Doctor' (1986), the
Structured Programming columnist (Namir Clement Shammas [sp?])
_regularly_ talked about Ada.  Now, yes, it is virtually ignored (in
spite of annual issues about software engineering, real-tim
programming, etc.) due to causes Greg has refused to act like a vendor
and let us forget about.

I am occasionally annoyed by Greg's diatribe (and his not responding to
my posting of the section from the OOPSLA brochure [did you miss the
post?] :-), but his function is absolutely vital to the survival of the
language.

Jim Crigler
---------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not allowed to have any sharp opinions that might tear the
padded walls.

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[David Emery]

I'd rather Ada be used in a couple of important domains, than widely
used where it doesn't count.  In particular, I'm very proud of the
fact that Ada is the dominant language for both Air Traffic Control
and avionics.  With those two successes, I don't care what Microsoft
codes in...
				dave

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.e]

tne@world.std.com (Thomas N Erickson) writes:


>Nevertheless, it should not be considered a failure.  It is one of the few
>programming languages GROWING in use and there are several very successful
>applications (both military and civilian).

A nitpick here:  I think that even the most obscure languages are growing --
if language X had 10 people who knew it last year and 20 that know it
this year then its growing.  The languages that are not growing are
probably Fortran and Cobol -- even these are doubtful (my alma mater is
still cranking out engineers having taken the required Fortran course.)

>Alsys

*dt*




>-- 
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tom Erickson					Alsys
>tne@world.std.com				67 South Bedford Street
>						Burlington, MA 01803

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[Gregory Aharonian]

>We have published a list of our successes in civilian industries
>(available from Xavier Dejoie (617-270-0030). The list is impressive and
>growing.  Automobile manufacturers, civilian aviation, process control,
>energy, transportation and others.

    Your list is miniscule and wimpy, compared to aggregrate uses of
programming languages in the US economy.  If someone in the Ada world had
the honesty to actually do a comprehensive survey/census of what is going
on, instead of these endless lets-pat-ourselves-on-the-back lists of Ada
successes, you will find that my guestimate of 2% market share for Ada is
pretty close to the mark.  And 2% is lousy, given the billions spent on
programs using Ada.

>It is true that we vendors need to better promote our successes.  Alsys,
>as one of the vendor community is beginning to do this now, within the
>realms of fiscal reality.  We also are cooperating with the Ada Software
>Alliance and AJPO in efforts to increase the visibility of Ada in ways not
>previously tried.

Better promote Ada?  How about getting your Telesoft subsidiary to start
sticking the phrase "Ada" into its ads.  That would be a good start.
Cooperating with ASA and AJPO?  Where have you guys been in the last seven
years?  Ways not previously tried?  Geesh, there are dozens of ways of
getting more attention for Ada that should have been done years ago.  How
about showing up at the Software Engineering trade shows, the object oriented
trade shows, the reengineering trade shows, etc?  (Admittedly, I feel bad
getting so testy, since Alsys has the best record for advertising Ada.)

>I encourage all of you to help by taking part in the promotion of its
>successes.

Right.  A week ago I put forth a proposal on comp.lang.ada for everyone
to jointly sponsor a series of ads in Computerworld.  I did not hear from
anyone from any of the Ada compiler vendor companies showing any interest
in even just talking about the idea.  No one.

>It is true that we vendors need to better promote our successes.  Alsys,
>as one of the vendor community is beginning to do this now, within the
>realms of fiscal reality.

One of the reasons it is so easy to doubt the honesty of such convictions
is that early on in the Ada days when the big bucks were flowing in, Ada
marketing and evangelizing was for the most part ignored.  Now that there
is no such easy money, you guys are crying.  Well too late.  You assumed
certain responsibilities early on in the life of Ada by allowing the country
to subsidize to some extent the founding of your companies.

Well, now your country is asking you to live up to your committments and
make the language succeed as you should have done years ago, especially
when others were trying to start Ada businesses with their own money.  Many
of these small startups failed because the large Ada players never played,
and just gouged.

And just in case your Telesoft subsidiary has no spell checker, Ada is
spelled "A - D - A".
-- 
**************************************************************************
 Greg Aharonian
 Source Translation & Optimization
 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

Re: Ada is not a failure.

[agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!peruvian.cs.utah.edu!matwood]

In article <CAq1Ir.223@world.std.com> tne@world.std.com (Thomas N Erickson)
writes:
> ...
>Improvements are needed, so Ada9X is an evolution of the language to meet
>today's market demands.  Alsys recently performed a survey of 100 of our
>North American customers.  92% responded that they would be using 9X
>capabilities by the end of 95 if they were available.  Alsys plans to make
>them available even sooner.

How many of the capabilities?  You can avoid the "difficult" annexes and still
call it 9X.

>Although the growth of Ada outside of mission critical applications is
>next to zero (which is logical considering Ada's original design
>criteria),

No it isn't.  It's next to zero because people who havn't used the language
and been converted by it's advantages have 1) never been encouraged to
buy it, 2) have never seen it marketed outside of the DoD community,
3) and have been sticker shocked by the price.

True, your LEAP program makes a stab at it, but it took an Ada vendor too
long to realize what nearly every other software vendor knows, the schools
are what will sell you.  (And don't tell me about "finantial realities".
Once you have the thing developed, it's next to free to copy and distribute
it.)

>...
>It is true that we vendors need to better promote our successes.  Alsys,
>as one of the vendor community is beginning to do this now, within the
>realms of fiscal reality.  We also are cooperating with the Ada Software
>Alliance and AJPO in efforts to increase the visibility of Ada in ways not
>previously tried.

Are you going to OOPSLA?

>...

>Tom Erickson
>Group Vice-President, Marketing
>Alsys

Oh, and when will there be an alsys.com ?

-- 
Mark Atwood                  | My school and employer have too many problems
matwood@peruvian.cs.utah.edu | without being blamed for mine.