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 <EMERY.92Dec8095856@dr_no.mitre.org> emery@dr_no.mitre.org (David Emery) wri
tes:

>My problem comes with the conduct of the standardization committees.
>As has been noted previously, ISO WG15, and also the IEEE TCOS SEC,
>have been adept at developing bureaucratic roadblocks for language
>bindings other than C.  Ada is not alone in this respect; the FORTRAN
>group (P1003.9) has been similarly obstructed.  Much of this is
>centered around the call for "language independence".  ISO has ruled
>(for better or worse, mostly worse, in my opinion) that POSIX
>standards should be developed using a language-independent notation,
>with "thin" language bindings.  This has been used as justification to
>prevent the FORTRAN and Ada bindings from achieving standardization,
>but the same line of reasoning has NOT been applied to equivalent C
>bindings.  

Well, as I understand it, the attempt was made to apply it to the
equivalent C bindings, and it was pointed out that trying to do that
would practically require redoing all of POSIX and that the people
doing the work simply weren't going to stand for that right now.  I
also understand that this isn't exactly a 'new rule' pulled out by ISO
just to obstruct Ada as a sop to the 'Great C Conspiracy'.  I agree
with you that it's a crock, but it's the price we pay for trying to
play with ISO.

>The net effect of these procedures has been to permit work on C
>bindings to go forward, while holding back other language bindings
>from full standarization.  I find this objectionable.  If a
>requirement like language-independence is established, it should be
>applied equally.  If language-independence and thin bindings are a
>good thing for Ada and FORTRAN, then they are a good thing for C, too.
>If they're not a good idea for C, why does anyone think they are good
>for other languages?  

Well, actually, I gather that they don't.  The C folks would just as
soon let you bind to C instead of some language-independent form.  ISO
is the roadblock, and from what I hear they also wanted to try to
force C Language to do this -- but right now it's so embedded in the
POSIX spec that it can't really be done without major rework of POSIX.
ISO was (once again, rumor based knowledge) basically told that if
they wanted to play in POSIX they would simply have to accept things
the way they were right now, with a promise to address language
independence on the next pass.  Personally, I think this approach
should have been followed for ALL the language specs, but that isn't
how it came down.  Personally, I also feel that painting this as some
'conspiracy' or 'antagonism to Ada' by the 'C community' is both
untrue and somewhat less than productive.

>I don't want to see _any_ language binding prevented from achieving
>standarization.  But, as an Ada advocate and Ada bindings developer, I
>have a personal stake in the standardization of Ada bindings to open
>systems standards such as POSIX, PHIGS, and X Windows.  

Gee, Dave, we agreed about something!  Now if you could have just
avoided this 'in your face' approach in the first place . . . 

Probably too much to ask for, though.

-- 
"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.