From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_05 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 11 Aug 93 05:38:24 GMT
From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!ub!dsinc!g
vls1!lonjers@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Jim Lonjers)
Subject: Re: Is Ada9X represented at CORBA efforts?
Message-ID: <1993Aug11.053824.22282@VFL.Paramax.COM>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1993Aug10.190349.15949@verdix.com> edm@verdix.com (Ed Matthews) wri
tes:
>but bindings do not an architecture make.

True, but a poorly developed architecture can make a binding designer's
life truly miserable:  That is, it may be difficult to produce an Ada
oriented binding (tasking safe, etc.) which retains competitive performance
characteristics.

Of course, as we have found out, such things hurt all languages.  C threads
cause UNIX to break in serious ways.

>What do you think "relevant Ada action" is? 

Develop an Ada binding concurrently with the C binding so that they are
published concurrently and the inter-language nand langauge-specific issues
can be worked out up front instead of after the fact.

While CORBA maybe relatively "language independent" there is no such thing
as true language-independence.