From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5a05d88755a62a0e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: Asynchronous Transfer of Control Date: 1996/10/21 Message-ID: <1996Oct21.180838.1@eisner>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 191083464 x-nntp-posting-host: eisner.decus.org references: <32656457.1A76@csehp1.mdc.com> <54fnb1$5m7@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us> x-nntp-posting-user: KILGALLEN x-trace: 845935723/19673 organization: LJK Software newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > In fact, the ruling of the AVO, after much discussion, was precisely that > this test (the one requiring 31 priority levels) could indeed be ruled > inapplicable for TSP, so they can claim quite rightly that their validation > includes validation for the real time annex as well as the core. If the decision had been otherwise, it seems to me the validation process would have become a matter of rating operating systems rather than compilers. That does not serve the needs of those who have already chosen an operating system and now must choose a compiler for it. There are few ways to discourage a would be Ada project so effective as saying "Well, _real_ Ada cannot be done on the operating system you have chosen." CPM and RSTS advocates should get that brush-off, but not Windows NT fans. The world cares a lot more about Windows NT than Ada (this month). Larry Kilgallen