Re: Amiga UX and Ada

Re: Amiga UX and Ada

["J. Eric Townsend"]

I've added comp.lang.ada, please keep this in mind when you followup.

In article <16098@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> djohnson@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) writes:
>Of course, I know some people who would be perfectly willing to use
>inexpensive unvalidated Ada compilers, or even not-quite-Ada, since
>then development could be done on workstations, etc.

Roll your own.  Ada is close enough to Pascal (really!) that it's
pretty straightforward to pirate across a good Pascal compiler.  In my
undergraduate compilers class, we had to generate assembly for an ada-subset
language (missing all the thread-type stuff and difficult-to-code user
niceties, etc).  In the space of a semester, I was able to manage function
calls, exceptions (or whatever ada calls them) and a couple of other
things.  An experienced compiler person should need only 6-12 months,
I'd *guess*.

I actually have considered writing a ada-subset (keep in mind that
"Ada" is legally protected to  the point that you can't sell
an "Ada compiler") compiler, but I can't justify the time expenditure.

Ada-flames to /dev/null, I really don't care to argue about Ada
good or bad.  It's just another language.

--
J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - bitnet: jet@UHOU - vox: (713) 749-2120
"It is the cunning of form to veil itself continually in the evidence
of content.  It is the cunning of the code to veil itself and to produce
itself in the obviousness of value." -- Baudrillard

Re: Amiga UX and Ada

[Michael Feldman]

In article <1991Jan29.051947.27478@lavaca.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") writes:
>
>>Of course, I know some people who would be perfectly willing to use
>>inexpensive unvalidated Ada compilers, or even not-quite-Ada, since
>>then development could be done on workstations, etc.
>
>I actually have considered writing a ada-subset (keep in mind that
>"Ada" is legally protected to  the point that you can't sell
>an "Ada compiler") compiler, but I can't justify the time expenditure.

I think your information on this may be outdated. The government has
allowed the trademark to lapse; the essence of it is if you want to sell
unvalidated Ada and I want to buy it, Uncle Sam shouldn't stop us from
making a deal. _Validated_ Ada is required for _government_ software,
but for nongovernment work the government does not get involved any more.
Ada is _no longer_ "legally protected"; the trademark lapsed in 1988.
IMHO, the government did the right thing.

Mike Feldman