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
Richard Conn, ASE and PAL Manager
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Geoff Bull
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 12:55 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: What the competition looks like
> Richard L. Conn wrote:
> > With our current infrastructure, we cannot compete
> > with something like this. It shows where some of the
> > $2.5B/year Microsoft is putting into R&D is going.
> Microsoft tools may be wonderful (not in my experience), but
> there are many situations where they are simply not appropriate.
> Applications that need cross platform portability.
> Embedded applications (e.g. some printers have a web
> interface for administration).
> Existing applications written in other languages.
> Very large applications.
> Applications with long life cycles (MS obsoletes APIs
> as fast as they introduce new ones).
> And, as you mention, safety critical applications.
> etc, etc.
> I am surprised by your defeatist attitude.
> Sigh ...
> We are Microsoft.
> Resistance is futile,
> you will be assimilated ;-)