From: agnew@trwrc.UUCP (R.A. Agnew)
Subject: Re: Answer to 'a question'
Date: Thu, 10-Sep-87 17:05:36 EDT [thread overview]
Date: Thu Sep 10 17:05:36 1987
Message-ID: <222@trwrc.UUCP> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 12332478709.9.ROSENBLUM@Sierra.Stanford.EDU
In article <12332478709.9.ROSENBLUM@Sierra.Stanford.EDU> ROSENBLUM@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU (David S. Rosenblum) writes:
>
>Nevertheless, this skirts a more fundamental issue, namely that software
>which depends on such implementation characteristics cannot be portable.
>Remember that a major goal of the Ada language is portability of Ada
>software.
>
This is due to the fact that the Ada standard was not written to accomodate
multi-processor systems and it was not intended to run under an operating
system. These facts reinforce my opinion that either the "green" proposal
was not responsive to the RFP or (as usual) neither the DOD or "green"
understood what was required of real-time imbedded systems in the
1990-2010 time frame. When we have to bandage the mess that ADAJPO has
procurred to make it work, you can be sure that it will be non-portable.
My opinion only.
prev parent reply other threads:[~1987-09-10 21:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1987-08-27 15:58 Answer to 'a question' Alfred.Peterson
1987-09-02 18:01 ` Gary Young
1987-09-04 16:58 ` R.A. Agnew
1987-09-06 16:08 ` David S. Rosenblum
1987-09-10 21:05 ` R.A. Agnew [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox