From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,bcdd81f11a99e024 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: C to JVM, time to revive JGNAT? Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <20060809124902.O84175@docenti.ing.unipi.it> <8utCg.12454$E02.4571@newsb.telia.net> <1vsvetmg19cnl.1dsnld0rfx6ax.dlg@40tude.net> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:01:52 +0200 Message-ID: <13mokfud4ijdu.c51ybbepy6mv$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Aug 2006 10:01:52 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 9a02402e.newsspool3.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=2@7enW;^6ZC`4F0oLNYGj^5S= X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6199 Date: 2006-08-14T10:01:52+02:00 List-Id: On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:09:24 +0200, Maciej Sobczak wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >>> No, but the biggest challenge in portability is the relatively small >>> (when compared to, say, Java) standard library. >>> For example, write a web browser in Ada (net+gui+crypto+...) and let me >>> know how much portable it is. >> >> It is a difficult question. You cannot pack everything into libraries for >> obvious reasons. I can imagine a system without GUI, but it is difficult to >> do for numeric things. Then, when you say NET, I'd ask which one? Can I >> have field buses, multicast protocols, time-triggered protocols in Java? >> The next question about non-functional requirements. What can be said about >> rendering performance of that portable browser, how many numeric operations >> will be required for encrypting 1MB, etc? > > These are all valid point, but the logic is fuzzy anyway. > For example, C, C++ and Ada support the concept of std{in|out|err} > channels and their standard libraries contain appropriate stuff for > this. But if we think about it, there are many platforms where the > standard IO channels do not exist at all (most embedded boxes, I guess, > and even "some" GUI environments as well), but the support for stdio is > in the standard anyway. What's even more intersting is that there are > probably more environments which support TCP/IP than those which support > stdio (think "embedded boxes") - still, it's stdio which gets attention > of standard committees, not TCP/IP. Yes, in XXI century TCP/IP is much more important than Text_IO. > There are obviously many factors that shaped this, but the final result > is that most interesting applications are not portable. Yes. Because the platform is quite often a sufficient part of interest. > Java may not > have standard support for field buses or time-triggered protocols, but > neither has C, C++ nor Ada. The point is not in what nobody has, but in > what they do have - with increased portability of final software - and > we don't. I agree, but it is rather a problem of Ada's image. I doubt that Java is more portable in strict sense [=man years required to fulfill the requirements on some new platform], but it definitely *appears* more portable. Which, as experience shows, is far more important than whether it really is. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de