>I am not certain there is a budget for promoting Ada now that all the
>DoD funding has disappeared.
Didn't the end-of-mandate report suggest $10M/year or some such from
the DOD? Perhaps they don't believe their shiny new C++ or Java
software will have problems that Ada would have prevented. Perhaps
they don't worry any more about a proliferation of language du jour's.
But perhaps they do understand that if there are no Ada programmers,
(or Ada compiler vendors), they are going to have a real problem
maintaining currently existing software.
>The purpose of a company is to make money for its stock holders
Hey, the modern purpose of a company is to make money for its
top executives, without doing *so* badly for the stockholders that
said executives get fired. ;]
My impression is that Rational's products are aimed at making tools
to help programmers more easily make more solid programs. They may
have decided that the demand is for "chewing gum and baling wire" to
hold together poorly designed products, but it seems unlikely that
even the best maker of chewing gum and baling wire will have a large
market, or a good reputation, as it becomes clear that poor design
plus CG&BW doesn't cut it.
Even more than advertising money, I think Ada needs allies - people
whose interests will be furthered by furthering Ada. The new new
thing is always attractive to Joe Programmer, who can distinguish
himself from his colleagues by being the first on the block to know X,
to Sam Reporter, who can get a scoop about the new X, or to Fred
Moneybags, who's looking for something to invest in other than Yet
Another .Com. But if, say, Joe could become the local expert on
making solid programs, or Sam could write muckraking articles about
the dangers of certain existing techniques, or Fred could invest in a
company that would be a market leader in using the better technology,
they would have an incentive to champion alternatives to the status