Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!ROO.FIT.EDU!SAHARBAUGH
From: SAHARBAUGH@ROO.FIT.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: You get what you pay for etc.
Message-ID: <9106192038.AA24658@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 19 Jun 91 20:35:00 GMT
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 25

Marty Leisner writes:
The DoD probably made a mistake for providing a framework for a vendor system
rather than taking responsibility for a standard ADA compiler itself amd
distributing it cheaply.
--
Just a bit of history in case you didn't know the DoD spent
over $30M to have an Ada compiler developed.  The outcome was
less than desired performance wise I understand but I believe
that they "distribute it cheaply". I for one am sorely disappointed
and I believe financially at a loss because there is not
available to me a production quality, Gov't furnished Ada
compiler with source code etc.  My point is mainly that you
can't blame the DoD for not trying. Actually I never place
blame for the outcome because I know I couldn't have done it
if my life depended on it.  I think it was just too soon
to try for production quality in one step.
--
While I'm rambling let me repeat my suggestion that I posted
several years ago: Take the $30M and offer a $10M 1st prize,
$5m 2nd prize, $1M 3rd prize for the best Ada compiler submitted
on a certain date.  The DoD would have had 3 fairly good compilers
and had $14M left for maintenance, tools etc.  Oh well, it just
shows how good hindsight can be. If I only knew what to do in real-time.
sam harbaugh saharbaugh@ROO.FIT.EDU        
-----------