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=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 2 Jun 93 00:48:55 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.
reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!menudo.uh.edu!nuchat!leeweyr!bill@ucbv
ax.Berkeley.EDU  (Bill Lee)
Subject: Re: How to Make Ada more widely used?
Message-ID: <1993Jun2.004855.10662@leeweyr.sccsi.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1993Jun2.004023.10578@leeweyr.sccsi.com> bill@leeweyr.sccsi.com (Bi
ll Lee) writes:
>Some background:
>
>
>The answer as I see it is the POSIX Ada bindings. I am using them
>at work, but the "designers" who read through the POSIX specs and
>decided what was "required" unfortunately knew (know?) nothing
>about Ada. And the bindings we have been given have left out the
>most rudimentary elements: e.g., the generic read/write procedures
>in the I/O spec!
>

Just so nobody misunderstands: the "designers" were those at work,
not the POSIX bindings people. 1003.5 is as good a piece of work
as you could ask for. Too bad that the IEEE is so dead-set against Ada
that they are trying to force thin bindings on everything else.


Bill