From:	CRDGW2::CRDGW2::MRGATE::"SMTP::PREP.AI.MIT.EDU::INFO-G++-REQUEST" 27-JUN-1989 18:13
To:	MRGATE::"ARISIA::EVERHART"
Subj:	What price C++ ???

Received: by life.ai.mit.edu (4.0/AI-4.10) id AA02598; Tue, 27 Jun 89 16:25:33 EDT
Return-Path: <info-g++-request@prep.ai.mit.edu>
Received: from tut.cis.ohio-state.edu ([128.146.8.60]) by life.ai.mit.edu (4.0/AI-4.10) id AA02548; Tue, 27 Jun 89 16:21:56 EDT
Received: by tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (5.59/4.890612)
	id AA13492; Tue, 27 Jun 89 16:20:37 EDT
Received: from USENET by tut.cis.ohio-state.edu with netnews
	for info-g++@prep.ai.mit.edu (info-g++@prep.ai.mit.edu)
	(contact usenet@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu if you have questions)
Date: 27 Jun 89 19:37:33 GMT
From: ginosko!sacco@uunet.uu.net  (Joseph E. Sacco)
Organization: Mitchell and Gauthier Associates
Subject: What price C++ ???
Message-Id: <50@eileen.samsung.com>
Sender: info-g++-request@prep.ai.mit.edu
To: info-g++@prep.ai.mit.edu


    For many of us in the C++ community who have been waiting anxiously 
    for months for the release of Rev 2.0, the announcement of June 30 as 
    THE official release date evoked an audible sigh of relief. Finally,
    features that have been discussed for months in papers and on the net would
    be available: Typesafe linkage, overloading of the operators new and delete,
    smart pointers, multiple inheritance and more. No longer would it be
    necessary to call At&T Software Licensing every two weeks just to hear
    "I don't know when. Sorry." One could now plan a C++ based product.

    I called At&T Software Licensing the other day to inquire about upgrading
    my single CPU license for Rev 1.2. When I was informed of the pricing
    structure I DAMN NEAR DIED! There was this long pause while I attempted
    to regain some modicum of composure. I asked them to FAX me the
    information on an offical letter head that I could present to my
    management. The information is summarized below:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "As per our discussions the pricing structure for C++ Release 1.2 and
    2.0 are as follows:

    AT&T Language System, Rel 1.2           C++ Language System, Rel 2.0
    Initial CPU: $2000                      Initial CPU: $20,000

    Each Additional CPU: $1000              Each Additional CPU: $5000

    Initial Sublicensing Fee: $2000         Initial Sublicensing Fee: N/A
					    (June 30th)

					    Upgrade Fee: * See Below Notes 1&2

    *NOTES:
    1. Upgrade fees are available ONLY to Licensees of AT&T C++ Language 
       System,1.2.

    2. LICENSEES of AT&T C++ Language System, Release 1.2 who, before September
       30, 1989, fully execute a license for AT&T C++ Language System, Release
       2.0 may upgrade the initial DESIGNATED CPU for a fee of $10,000, and
       additional DESIGNATED CPU's for a fee of $2,500, per CPU.

    Please also note that June 30, 1989 will be At&T's cut-off date for 
    issuing any licensing arrangements for C++, Release 1.2.

    If you have any further questions, please call me on 1-800-828-UNIX."
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There as also a brief, verbal discussion on fees for universities. I
    believe it was stated that there would be no more site licenses but
    rather a flat fee of $300 per CPU. The university fee schedule was not
    included in the FAX I received so I do not have that information in
    writing.

    I was under the impression that AT&T was interested in making C++ the
    next "standard" language of choice. I see the five-to-ten-fold fee
    increase to be counter to that goal at this time. It would appear
    that AT&T is pushing end users toward third party suppliers of binary
    versions of the translator. I believe that action to be premature.
    John Carolan described Release 1.2 as $2000 worth of bugs. He was
    correct. However, given access to the source code and the C++ community 
    through the net, one could work with Release 1.2 to learn the language and
    sketch inital designs. Given the current state of flux of the language 
    [and the translator], I would not consider it prudent at this time to to
    undertake the development of a commerical software product without access
    to the source code. It is shear folly to attempt to schedule a software
    product when that schedule will be dependent upon some third party vendor
    providing timely fixes to translator bugs that will most certainly be
    present. Without source code and access to the C++ community, the response
    time to fix a bug will be measured in months rather than days. You just
    cannot plan ahead with any degree of confidence.

    Eventually the language and the translator will stabilize sufficiently
    that access to source code will be unnecessary for most development
    of applications software. Afterall, I do not have source code for either
    UNIX or my C compiler and yet I get along quite well without source. Here
    it is a matter of degree. There may be bugs in these products but
    their effects upon my development efforts are minimal. They are
    mature products that have gone through many release cycles.

    What to do? There are choices: 

	(i) Do not use C++ for the development of commerical products at 
	    this time. Study it, play with it, but wait until things 
	    settle down. Your job may depend upon your decision.

       (ii) Use g++ from the Free Software Foundation. This is a true compiler
	    [native code generator] with a source level debugger.  The current
	    version, 1.35.1-, appears to have incorporated most or all of the 
	    features of Release 2.0 in addition to some of their own.
	    However, I suggest that you have your attorneys carefully study 
	    the "copy-left" agreement associated with this offering to prevent
	    "misunderstandings" about what you can an cannot use in a
	    commerical product.

      (iii) Given the five-to-ten-fold increase in the fee schedule for source
	    code, the fees for binary versions of release 2.0 may rise 
	    substantially. Since the binaries will not be cheap, it might be
	    worthwhile to consider using another object oriented language like
	    Eiffel or Objective-C.  Here, if there is a problem you can deal
	    directly with the people at the "source" rather than through 
	    middlemen. Consequently, I suspect that the response time to bugs
	    will be considerably better.
	    
       (iv) Contact the people at AT&T Software Licensing and discuss the 
	    matter with them. They should listen to their customer base.

    A person to contact at AT&T is the manager of software licensing:

			Mr. Otis Wilson
			AT&T Information Systems
			UNIX Software Licensing
			P.O. Box 25000
			Greensboro, NC 27420

	    phone:      1-800-828-UNIX
	    FAX:        (919)-855-2753
	    e-mail:     ...ihnp4!attunix!gcss20!olw

    Be advised that Mr. Otis did not define the fee schedule but has
    access to those who did. As always, please observe net etiquette
    when communicating with Mr. Wilson. He is reputed to be someone
    who listens to his customers.




							    Joe
