Re: Open Systems closed to Ada?

[agate!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mkso l!mccall@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (fred j mccall 575-3539)]

In <EACHUS.92Dec7182950@oddjob.mitre.org> eachus@oddjob.mitre.org (Robert I. Ea
chus) writes:


>     I don't know why I bother, other than to lower my blood pressure...

Well, I'm not sure why you bothered, either, but if it makes you feel
better, why go for it.  :-)

>In article <1992Dec5.231243.1533@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (
fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>   In <EMERY.92Dec4135828@dr_no.mitre.org> emery@dr_no.mitre.org (David Emery)
 writes:

>   >>I have spent the last 5 years working on IEEE Standard P1003.5 Ada
>   >>Binding to POSIX...

>   >>When I got started in the P1003.5 effort, I was hoping that we would
>   >>be welcomed by the rest of POSIX.  What I expected was disinterest.
>   >>What I found was hostility.  

>   >Manifested how?  Surely they didn't just act hostile because you were
>   >doing the Ada binding.  There had to be just a bit more to it than
>   >that, wouldn't you say?

>   >Reject as you like.  There is a BIG difference between going to
>   >meetings and KNOWING the people at those meetings.  From your attitude
>   >here, I would guess that you couldn't be bothered to do the latter,
>   >them only being C scum and all...

>     Fred, pay attention!  Dave did not say, I went to a few POSIX
>meetings and made a lot of noise.  He said he spent five years working
>on the P1003.5 Ada binding.  Dave didn't do ALL the work, but from
>watching the process there were only a few people who did the work of
>making the binding happen.  There is a big difference between
>attending a conference or six and doing the work.

Robert, pay attention!  Fred did not say that Dave said that.
However, what Dave DID say was that they were "greeted with animosity"
or something very similar.  Now, that hardly sounds like the closest
working relationship in the world, now does it?

>   >>And, Fred, please try to spell my last name right the next time you
>   >>flame me.  It's E-M-E-R-Y.  You wouldn't want people to be confused
>   >>about who you are attacking, would you?

>   >Oh, and just by the by, you might want to read through the netiquette
>   >stuff on criticism regarding typing, spelling, grammar, etc.
>   >Generally considered bad form, and all that.

>      Generally considered bad form to correct spelling errors, means
>don't be one of a hundred idiots who post to point out a typing error.
>It does NOT apply to correcting the misspelling of your own name,
>especially as part of another post.

Certainly it does, unless it is done repeatedly.  Criticizing typos is
one of the commonest obfuscatory tactics used on Usenet.  That's part
of the reason why that bit is in the netiquette.

>   >Rave on, Dave.  Rant about the Evil C Conspiracy all you
>   >want.  Just don't be surprised if people decline to see the world
>   >through your ever-so-biased viewpoint.

>   >Me, I prefer reality to raves.

>    Try reality then.  The ISO POSIX working group ISO/IEC
>JTC1/SC22/WG15 refuses to submit any POSIX bindings, OTHER THAN C
>BINDINGS, for standardization until the language independent binding
>is complete.  Language independent bindings may be a good idea, but
>this one has been going no where for years, and is delaying the
>international approval of both Ada and FORTRAN bindings.  There is an
>IEEE standard POSIX binding to Ada (P1003.5) which does not use the LI
>binding, the IEEE POSIX Ada group has agreed to use the LI binding for
>an Ada 9X binding, so why is there a problem.  Earlier this year, WG9
>asked WG15 to expedite the Ada binding.  The action they took was
>worse than delay...

Well, there's just a bit more to this, from what I understand about
what is going on.  As I understand it, ISO didn't just 'make up' this
rule; there is something in their setup that REQUIRES that anything
not based on a specific language be written in language-independent
terms.  Now, as long as POSIX and C were treated alone, everything was
fine.  Once other language bindings started to turn up, they have to
be done in a language-independent fashion.  I understood that this was
initially a problem with more than just the two language bindings --
that it was a problem with all of POSIX.  However, I also understand
that ISO wound up basically getting told something like, "We'll fix it
later, but if you think that the U.S. is going to wait on a Standard
and that all these people are going to go back and redo all that work
just to comply with your rules, you're kidding yourself."  They were
basically offered the choice of taking it with a C spec or of going
their own way.  Economics rather forced the former course, predicated
by the promise to migrate things to a more language-independent form.
They sort of have to buy the C bindings, since without them there is
no POSIX right now.

Completer facts are better.  Anyway, this hardly sounds like some vast
conspiracy against Ada, once it's looked at in context.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.