Richard L. Conn wrote:
> I view my perception as more practical than
> defeatest. Yes, you are right ... there are
> many more non-Microsoft needs than the safety
> critical one I mentioned. But the point is:
> who is going to pay for the infrastructure
> development? Hobbiests working at home at night?
> Volunteers? Venture capitalists?
> Tuck said the other day that the ARA has an
> annual budget of $75K. I think it should go
> toward enhancing Ada's strengths, not spreading
> us thin.
I don't recall anybody suggesting the ARA fund any development.
Even if they had the funding, that is not their purpose.
Was GtkAda funded by venture capitalists?
Did Linus Torvalds need the blessing of M$ before
he started Linux?
I made a small Ada to Java JNI binding for my work.
I realized it might have wider appeal, so I spent my own
time making it more generally useful.
What is wrong with this?
Also, I can't see the value in you telling us we are all
wasting out time.
I also see your drop out rate is > 50%.
Man, you gotta be doing something wrong!
Back when I went to University (it was free in those days)
the dropout rate was nothing like yours.
(or maybe this is an American v's Australian thing?).
My first language was Pascal and my first program was
probably "hello world", but I was stilled hooked.
I was just thankful to not have to use punch cards.
I think if Ada is content to just play in a couple of
small niches, it will find its territory continually eroded
by other languages. To survive Ada needs to build critical mass by
aggressively invading new territory. Look for areas where
other languages are weak - I agree the M$ desktop is not one
of these areas. Of course, the ARA with a marketing budget of
just $75K is not in position to do much.
I think you have had too much exposure to M$.