What is wrong with Ada? - Programming Languages

On Apr 20, 12:25 pm, <adawo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I happen to like Python and I'm using more often now than Ada, for
> non-critical code. It is quick and easy. However, I would never think
> of using it for safety-critical software.[/color]

Wow! Me too! Even though I enjoy using Ada (and its numerous
benefits) for important stuff. Python is way too useful for small
little projects that seem to pop up needing to be solved ;-)

On Apr 21, 9:50 am, "jimmaureenrog...@worldnet.att.net"
<jimmaureenrog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Can you obtain trial versions of any Microsoft product at all?[/color]

Actually most computer science students can obtain free and complete
versions of most Microsoft products.


-CRM

"Chad R. Meiners" <chad.rmeiners@gmail.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> On Apr 21, 9:50 am, "jimmaureenrog...@worldnet.att.net"
> <jimmaureenrog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Can you obtain trial versions of any Microsoft product at all?[/color]
>
> Actually most computer science students can obtain free and complete
> versions of most Microsoft products.[/color]

I hate to make advertisement for them, but even a non-student you can
get trial versions of a lot (most?) of things, e.g. Exchange (brr --
who'd want that?), most of the operating systems (perhaps only at
certain times?). They are mostly restricted to 120 days of use.

Since we have been talking about Ada vendors: MS understands marketing
very well, something the Ada vendors never groked. E.g. You always get
an answer to requests. it might be wrong, but it's always friendly and
the stay composed, even if you refuse their offer of X by pointing to
some free (as in freedom) product and tell them that you and/or your
customers prefer the free solution. On the other side, if I compare
that to (big) Ada vendors (Randy excepted!): On two requests for a
price list only one vendor bothered to answer and he didn't send a
list but wanted to know more about me/us (obviously they don't have a
standard package, but take what you can afford, a particularly
unsympathetic approach). And about surreal answers on requests about
licensing state and history from the "acting director, Europe" of a
certain vendor, I've already written enough in the past.

There is one similarity, though: Libre (well, that's only one Ada
vendor) and download.microsoft.com share a similar degree of amnesia
as far as the past state of things are concerned.

Regards -- Markus

On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 11:57 +0200, Markus E Leypold wrote:[color=blue]
> On two requests for a
> price list only one vendor bothered to answer and he didn't send a
> list but wanted to know more about me/us (obviously they don't have a
> standard package, but take what you can afford, a particularly
> unsympathetic approach).[/color]

Maybe they don't publicly announce prices to make sure
they can provide affordable solutions? Who knows? Once
the price list is out, the rich and/or big profit customers
might start arguing that they do no longer see a reason to pay
the larger sum adequate to large scale use of the tools. "We
heard from this developer that he got ... Then why should
we ...?"

So customer investment in the tools might need more arguing
given a comparatively small customer base;
when MS was smaller they charged $$$$ for MS Word alone.
Suppose they would have tried to prevent copying...

MS now has a huge market share, they do not seem to abhor a
monopoly, and they can easily afford making developers and
their customers depend on MS offerings. Lamps and oil,
printers and ink, Developers and office solutions.

Of course, I'm just guessing.

Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:
[color=blue]
> On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 11:57 +0200, Markus E Leypold wrote:[color=green]
>> On two requests for a
>> price list only one vendor bothered to answer and he didn't send a
>> list but wanted to know more about me/us (obviously they don't have a
>> standard package, but take what you can afford, a particularly
>> unsympathetic approach).[/color]
>
> Maybe they don't publicly announce prices to make sure
> they can provide affordable solutions?[/color]

The mirror side is: Charge what you can get. That is something
people^Wcustomers don't like.

[url]http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/07/31.html[/url]
[url]http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html[/url]

And as far as affordable goes: I think I don't need to go into that (again) :-).
[color=blue]
> Who knows?[/color]

Yes, who knows. That's why my car vendor doesn't have a price list
.... not. Also why Microsoft doesn't have a price list etc. I think one
can well see there my argument what is going wrong with some Ada
vendors -- no need to elaborate.
[color=blue]
> Once the price list is out, the rich and/or big profit customers
> might start arguing that they do no longer see a reason to pay the
> larger sum adequate to large scale use of the tools.[/color]

Hardly. Just differentiate service contracts and license to use and
structure the service into different levels.

- Level 0: Only right to use.
- Level 1: Right to access a ticket system.
- Level 2: Right to browse a bug database / knowledge base about
fixed and open bugs.
- Level 3: Guarantee response times and quality.

This is one option and I think others will turn up. Or if you really
think that the cheap licenses are actually under price and not worth
the time and effort, then don't offer them. But if the cheap license
is still something you earn money with -- don't you think the "big
customer" will be somewhat pissed off to discover he pays more than
_you_ need, just because he can afford to.

[color=blue]
> "We heard from this developer that he got ... Then why should we
> ...?"[/color]

I wonder: Do they actually write in the contract that you aren't
allowed to disclose you price? Since it is the current setup that
incurs the risk that somebody who got a special deal will be blabbing
and it will haunt you in your relationship to another customer.
[color=blue]
> So customer investment in the tools might need more arguing
> given a comparatively small customer base;[/color]
[color=blue]
> when MS was smaller they charged $$$$ for MS Word alone.
> Suppose they would have tried to prevent copying...[/color]

If you mean they didn't charge for DOS -- you're wrong.
[color=blue]
> MS now has a huge market share, they do not seem to abhor a
> monopoly, and they can easily afford making developers and
> their customers depend on MS offerings. Lamps and oil,
> printers and ink, Developers and office solutions.[/color]
[color=blue]
> Of course, I'm just guessing.[/color]

Well -- you can go on guessing. I'm almost sure that your thoughts to
a certain extend agree with those of certain Ada vendors and the spin
-- "to make sure they can provide affordable solutions" -- is
certainly identical.

But that proves in my eyes exactly that they are absolutely clueless
about marketing and customer psychology -- if they really think like
that.

Regards -- Markus

On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 13:54 +0200, Markus E Leypold wrote:[color=blue]
> Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Maybe they don't publicly announce prices to make sure
> > they can provide affordable solutions? [/color]
>
> The mirror side is: Charge what you can get. That is something
> people^Wcustomers don't like.[/color]

Or pay as little as possible, there are always two parties
in a bargain.
[color=blue]
> [url]http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/07/31.html[/url][/color]

(Another argument: Dell is a free loader because they don't invest in
researching and developing the products they sell cheaply (computer
tech), unlike other computer makers. Good or bad?)
[color=blue]
> [url]http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html[/url][/color]

Some interesting speculations starting from Say's theorem
and some non-empiricism. So what? Wouldn't it be more informative
to observe what appears to be working, and how, in the Ada
market?
Unlike the C#/VB market, the Ada market has some
potential of being competitive: there is more than
one tool vendor, and the free-beer edition of GNAT
is gone.


[color=blue]
> Just differentiate service contracts and license to use and
> structure the service into different levels.[/color]

I see just this happening.


[color=blue]
> If you mean they didn't charge for DOS -- you're wrong.[/color]

Huh? MS software was both expensive and copyable.

[color=blue]
> I'm almost sure that your thoughts to
> a certain extend agree with those of certain Ada vendors and the spin
> -- "to make sure they can provide affordable solutions" -- is
> certainly identical.
>
> But that proves in my eyes exactly that they are absolutely clueless
> about marketing and customer psychology [/color]

You mean, RR Software's compiler and tools, publicly priced
slightly above MSVSStandard, only doesn't sell in the millions
because it is more expensive than commercial entry VS?

And you think that once Aonix offers a 249 € compiler,
the will start selling so many copies

"Markus E Leypold" <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>
wrote in message >[color=blue]
> The mirror side is: Charge what you can get. That is something
> people^Wcustomers don't like.
>[/color]
One of the practices that almost killed Ada was that of
gouging the Department of Defense because of the mandate.

By charging the highest prices they could get away with, the
compiler publishers also guaranteed that commercial prospects
for Ada would be slim to none. Had the pricing policies been
more in-line with the rest of the market, the story of Ada might
be quite different today.

Richard Riehle

On Apr 24, 6:20 pm, "Chad R. Meiners" <chad.rmein...@gmail.com>
wrote:[color=blue]
> On Apr 21, 9:50 am, "jimmaureenrog...@worldnet.att.net"
>
> <jimmaureenrog...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:[color=green]
> > Can you obtain trial versions of any Microsoft product at all?[/color]
>
> Actually most computer science students can obtain free and complete
> versions of most Microsoft products.[/color]

That fact is irrelevant to the conversation. The question was in
relation to
the difficulty of commercial projects obtaining trial versions of Ada
tools.

Jim Rogers

On Apr 10, 5:02 pm, Pascal Obry <pas...@obry.net> wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Agreed 100%. Another way to put it, let me ask : What's wrong with
> developers ? Why do they like unsafe languages ? Why do they like
> fighting a language all the time ? Why do they like unreadable code ?
> Why do they like to play with a debugger ? Why do they like to play
> Sherlock Holmes during hours to look for a bug ? Here are the real
> questions to me, again nothing wrong with Ada to me ![/color]

It has been a long time I left CLA.

Perhaps I can answer these questions:

Developers like unsafe languages and they like debugging because:

1.) That will help securing their jobs because there are always bugs
to find.

2.) They can go to their bosses and say "We have to postpone because
there is a bug in the codes which we are having hard time to trace and
kill. We need more time and budget to clean this beast up!"

3.) They can get commission when they proposed to purchase XXX
debugger.

Hope these 3 answer the questions. Cheers!
--
Adrian Hoe
[url]http://adrianhoe.net[/url]