comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: Re: Vendor bashing? Sort of.
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 14:16:38 GMT
Date: 1994-09-16T14:16:38+00:00	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <SRCTRAN.94Sep16091638@world.std.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu's message of 15 Sep 1994 21:56:28 -0400


>I really don't want to continue in this negative vein. We are all
>clearly in a bit of a mess now. Where do we go from here? Just
>bashing the government for blowing it on the mandate, and for
>supposedly making Ada 9X "too big" (though of course nobody wants
>_their_ features deleted...) will not get us very far. What next?
>
>Mike Feldman

    Simple.  Change DoD procurement regulations to give contractors incentives
to be as cost effective as possible.  Hard to sell (and build an Ada business)
to contractors who make the same amount of money as long as their performance
is not completely attrocious.  I would be happy to live with every idiotic
Ada policy out there if the DoD would just change its procurement regulations
to be more compatible with market practices.
    Example.  I once had a chance to help save a DoD contractor a few hundred
thousand dollars on a project they were working on by providing them with 
existing Ada code (instead of them having to write it from scratch).  My
charge would have been a few tens of thousands of dollars.  So the DoD saves
money, the contractor completes the contract quicker, and I make some more
money to live and invest in my Ada business.
    Unfortunately, the managers there weren't interested for two reasons.
First they wouldn't give their workers a charge number for one hour of time
for me to come in and make a presentation.  I don't mind being rejected after
you have heard my pitch, but at least let me make it.  Second, their bonuses
and company profits were fixed to a percentage of the contract size, so my
offer to save money translated in their heads to less bonus and profits, an
instant sales killer.
    All this talk about commercializing Ada is utterly pointless, like the
current DualUse plan, as long as these conditions prevail.  For the only way
new companies are goign to find the money to commercialize Ada in the
non-Mandated world (where the market is miniscule) is from the profits made
in the Mandated world.  But for ten years, other than for compiler sales,
this is been impossible.

    In fact, here is another statistic to be collected:  what is the annual
sales of reusable Ada components from businesses into the Mandated world,
as a fraction of DoD software procurement expenditures?

Greg AHaronian




  reply	other threads:[~1994-09-16 14:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
1994-09-08 13:53 Air Force shows how meaningless Ada waiver process is Rhoda Metzger
1994-09-08 17:36 ` John R. Cobarruvias
1994-09-08 19:14 ` Greg Annoyingme gets tricky (was: Re: Air Force shows how meaningless Ada waiver process is) Ted Dennison
1994-09-08 20:16   ` John R. Cobarruvias
1994-09-13  9:46 ` Air Force shows how meaningless Ada waiver process is Richard A. O'Keefe
1994-09-13 16:14   ` Michael Feldman
1994-09-13 20:14     ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-14  2:46       ` Vendor bashing? Sort of Michael Feldman
1994-09-14 13:17         ` Mitch Gart
1994-09-15 13:28           ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-16 15:26             ` Michael Feldman
1994-09-16  1:56           ` Michael Feldman
1994-09-16 14:16             ` Gregory Aharonian [this message]
1994-09-16 18:23               ` Quo Vadis Ada Market?(was Re: Vendor bashing? Sort of.) david.c.willett
1994-09-17  0:11               ` Vendor bashing? Sort of Robert Dewar
1994-09-18 14:02                 ` Gregory Aharonian
1994-09-19 15:20                   ` david.c.willett
1994-09-19 17:11                   ` Kent Mitchell
1994-09-19 11:48                 ` Ted Dennison
1994-09-19 19:16             ` Kent Mitchell
1994-09-27  4:26               ` Michael Feldman
1994-09-27 16:38                 ` Kent Mitchell
1994-09-14 14:30         ` Mike Ryer
1994-09-15 13:30           ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-19  2:19             ` Michael Feldman
1994-09-19  3:52               ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-22 16:43                 ` Michael Feldman
1994-09-22 22:11                   ` Richard Kenner
     [not found]                   ` <35svf1$77i@cmcl2.nyu.edu>
1994-09-27  4:19                     ` Michael Feldman
1994-09-27 14:35                       ` M3 Network Objects (Formerly: bashing? Sort of.) Anthony Gargaro
1994-09-19 19:20               ` Vendor bashing? Sort of Erik Naggum
1994-09-20 13:58               ` C++ bashing (was Re: Vendor bashing? Sort of.) -mlc-+Schilling J.
1994-09-20 21:51                 ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-24 18:53                   ` Fred McCall
1994-10-04 16:03                     ` -mlc-+Schilling J.
1994-10-04 18:44                       ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-05 14:24                         ` -mlc-+Schilling J.
1994-09-14 13:49       ` Air Force shows how meaningless Ada waiver process is Christopher Costello
1994-09-17 12:40       ` Fred McCall
1994-09-22 17:15         ` Was... Air Force shows... Now... Vendor Bashing Chris Eveleigh
replies disabled

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox