* RE: INFO-ADA Digest V93 #349
@ 1993-06-07 15:58 Larry Keeler
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Larry Keeler @ 1993-06-07 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
In Message-ID: <1993Jun3.140654.9864@calspan.com> Terry J. Westley writes:
...
[ GOOD STUFF DELETED ]
...
>
>In that case, I'm one of the Ultimate Computer Masochists:
>I speak Ada on a Mac.
>
Aucontraire! That makes you a MacAdaMia Nut. :-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: INFO-ADA Digest V93 #349
@ 1993-06-10 5:41 Jim Lonjers
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jim Lonjers @ 1993-06-10 5:41 UTC (permalink / 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1993-06-10 5:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1993-06-10 5:41 INFO-ADA Digest V93 #349 Jim Lonjers
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1993-06-07 15:58 Larry Keeler
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox