Tucker Taft wrote:
>
> I am not trying to be a "Pollyanna" here, but we keep hearing
> that the bottom is going to drop out of the Ada market "any day now,"
> and it hasn't happened.  If anything, the "doom and gloom" serves to
> demoralize users of Ada.

Right.  Perception is not reality, but it can become so.  If all of
us decided to agree that Ada is a loser, it would likely become one.

The middle ground between despair and 'Pollyanna'ism can only be
found in one place: a real assessment of the Ada market, its
size, growth (or shrinkage), and prospects.

> The Ada compiler vendors have done their primary jobs in my view,
> namely producing quality compilers, and at least some of them
> have figured out how to create a sales force that knows how to sell
> them and make money in the process.
>
> In my view, they are not under any obligation to "grow" the overall Ada
> market, presuming they are successfully growing their own revenues and
> profits.

Ah, yes... money... the secret key... the hidden core.  It's a bit odd that
dollars are not discussed more openly in the Ada world.  The health of Ada
is best gauged by the amount of money being made by the compiler vendors.
Finding this information out is not easy.  Does the use of the word
'presuming' in the above sentence mean that no one knows?

Does the ARA make any attempt to gather & analyze Ada-specific financial
information from its members?  If it does, is this information considered
proprietary?  If so, is it possible for the ARA to produce 'consolidated'
reports of this information which do not belie the individual vendors?

Stanley Allen
mailto:[log in to unmask]