From: pitt.edu!dsinc!gvls1!lonjers@gatech.edu (Jim Lonjers)
Subject: Re: INFO-ADA Digest V93 #349
Date: 10 Jun 93 05:41:23 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1993Jun10.054123.28734@VFL.Paramax.COM> (raw)
Dave Emery said:
>>Much of the stuff you're asking for, particularly dealing with
>>directories, are not language issues, but operating system issues.
>>That's why there are C and Ada (and FORTRAN) bindings to POSIX.
Mr. Keeler responded:
>Exactly! But the C (and coincidentally C++) bindings are so well integrated
>with the C language that many people do not realize when they are using o/s
>features vs language features, when they are programming in C. Such is not th
e
>case, and will not be the case (from what I heard at Tri-Ada92), when one wish
es
>to use Unix operating system features when programming in Ada. It is my under
-
>standing that the Unix-C (C++) community has mandated that no POSIX bindings t
o
>any language other than C or C++ may be well integrated. No doubt this
>unannounced "mandate" has been of considerable commercial benefit to the
>C/C++ commercial community. Of course one would expect that Unix, written in
C,
>would have an advantage, but many of the additional raodblocks which have been
>put up, regarding whether thick or thin bindings may be included in the
>standard, and what must be done to get it approved as a standard appear to be
>for other than techically sound reasons. (I have heard it suggested that Ada
>should have its own operating system, but I think that this would serve to
>isolate it still more.) For Ada to be more widely used it needs strong
>bindings to the operating system. Without them, congressional mandate or no,
>Ada is left out with the also rans.
Just to clarify: Ada POSIX is a standard. It has been an IEEE standard
for more than a year and an ANSI standard for around 4 months. Many regard
the binding to be reasonably well integrated into Ada, and in may ways,
superior to the C binding. The Ada standard already handles Ada tasking
and the C binding will have to grapple with the serious problem of errno when
pthreads come into the picture.
Someone will have to educate me on what a "mandate" by the C/C++ community
regarding POSIX standards is. There are a few misguided individuals who
believe that there is some sort of "language war" going on between Ada and
the C languages, and by somehow placing the Ada standards at a sub-par
footing with the C language standards, this will put C at an advantage in
the war. Such an attitude is eschewed by most people I know in the POSIX
standards community. The market decides how much money each language
receives--not standards. By isolating POSIX into a C-only role only
dilutes the strength of the C standards.
I am, of course fully supportive of your view that Ada-only secondary
standards should be avoided as isolationist. Such standards will only
serve to drive the cost of Ada development and deployment environments
higher.
Regards,
Jim Lonjers
next reply other threads:[~1993-06-10 5:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1993-06-10 5:41 Jim Lonjers [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1993-06-07 15:58 INFO-ADA Digest V93 #349 Larry Keeler
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox