RE: Future with Ada

["Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." <rleif@rleif.com>]

From: Bob Leif
To: Mr. Caffiene et al.
1) Charging for software and providing the sources are two separate
subjects. I favor charging for the software and providing the sources.

2) Although many professionals enjoy their work, they still expect to be
paid. This is particularly true when someone else can make a large amount of
money off of the professional's work. For instance, some professional
athletes enjoy their sport and receive very adequate compensation. In short
software developers should NOT be required to take a poverty oath.

-----Original Message-----
From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
[mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org]On Behalf Of Mr. Caffiene
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 8:33 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Future with Ada


On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:41:08 -0500
"Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote:

> As well you know, Bob, I'm much in favor of the notion of making money
from
> the development of software. I think in particular that I liked the idea
you
> expressed in this and other papers that one of the best ways to promote
Ada
> and encourage its use is to demonstrate how people can make money by
> developing in Ada.
>
> Many companies don't necessarily know about or believe in the benefits of
> using Ada because they have not witnessed the tangible monetary benefits
of
> doing so. If their competitors were using Ada and developing better
> software, faster and cheaper, then they'd have to take a look at that.
>
> Many individual programmers are reluctant to learn or use Ada because they
> don't see a job future in it. They see thousands of ads for jobs using
other
> languages and few ads for Ada positions. If they saw more companies using
> Ada, they might be encouraged to want to earn a living that way.
>
> If the ad-hoc developers out there saw a chance to develop something in
Ada
> that might gain them fame and fortune rather than just the undying
gratitude
> of end users and corporations who picked up their work at no cost, there
> might be more of them flocking to the fold. Perhaps that's where I was
> headed by suggesting the construction of some commercial product in Ada
that
> would compete against some of the other big time apps out there. If Ada is
> so great, it ought to be possible to build something that competes
> effectively with the big guys, produces a better quality end product for
the
> consumer, makes money for those involved and produces more tools/utilities
> for the Ada community. Seems like everyone could win.
>
> MDC

I understand your reasoning here, however I get the impression (although I
could be mistaken) that you beleive money is always the primary motivating
factor for software development.
I disagree strongly. For several reasons...

1. I develope software because I enjoy it. Ada95 has made this process even
more enjoyable because it cuts down on the number of hoops I have to jump
through in order to get a piece of software just right. In many cases I can
actually track and prove a procedure from start to finish. I see it as a
sort of "zen" like artform, rather than as a die hard science.
Sure, I might end up getting a financial reward by being hired somewhere, or
perhaps by re-licensing the code to a commercial house. But that would sort
of be icing on the cake.

2. As far as developing a "big-time" application, arent there many such apps
already mature and floating around for additions and improvements. Apache,
the Linux kernel, PostGres SQL, etc... (not to mention the GNU system which
runs on just about every Unix and Non-Unix platform out there.) These were
developed not by a few developers hoping to make a profit, but rather by
significantly sized groups of developers exchanging thier "ideas"(the code
just happened to be a mode of communication).
As far as this goes, I'm currently working on a Plan9/Inferno type virtual
kernel designed for complete transparency over most networks. This might
take off, might not, but I sure am having fun experimenting and learning
from it.

3. If money was the primary motivating factor for development, I beleive
that if it were possible, there would be an even smaller pool of competent
developers among todays "digeratti", and software in general would be in an
even worse condition than it is now. A person doesn't endeavor to master
something they dont enjoy when half-assed will get them paid just as well.
Notice the current crop of cookie cutter developers pouring out of colleges
and universities these days. They're in it because they expect to be well
paid, unfortunately they end up developing software that I wouldn't pay 10
cents for. Note: This particular comment is directed at those who have taken
the time to master thier field of software development.

I hope this helps clarify some of the reasons that I write software. I cant
speak for everyone, but I'm sure there are at least a "few" who might agree
with me. ;->

I'm not slamming you either Mr. Condic. Just trying to point out some
inconsistencies in your rather sweeping generalization about software
developers.


As far as advancing Ada(95) goes; it would seem that allowing would-be Ada
developers access to the source code, so as to prove in practice the
benefits that Ada brings to the table, would be a much more convincing way
to target developers rather than using statistics that are second and third
level removed from a project and using anecdotal stories.

At least, that's my .02 worth. ;->

Chris
Mcdoobie
chris@dont.spam.me