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,e29c511c2b08561c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Theodore E. Dennison" Subject: Re: Is the "Ada mandate" being reconsidered? Date: 1996/06/14 Message-ID: <31C1F8D2.167EB0E7@escmail.orl.mmc.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 160235703 references: <4mq7mg$8hs@jake.probe.net> <4peu0v$rfq@news15.erols.com> <1996Jun10.114827.26046@relay.nswc.navy.mil> <4pk5sm$i7k@gde.GDEsystems.COM> <31BEC408.2781E494@escmail.orl.mmc.com> <4ppb89$gbq@gde.GDEsystems.COM> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Martin Information Systems mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m) Date: 1996-06-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Michael Levasseur wrote: > > Theodore E. Dennison wrote: > > > I have recently been directly involved in a DoD effort using large > > amounts of COTS hardware and software, and interfacing Ada to it has > > literally been the LEAST of our problems. Writing Ada bindings, even ... > > Getting COTS hardware/software combinations that will work > > together, now THAT has been a nightmare! > > Have you been building Ada bindings to C++? I've built plenty of > binding to C source code, i.e. VxWorks. I don't know of a way to > bind to C++ objects or C++ methods. Nope. Haven't needed to.(That was my point, vis-a-vis COTS). > > I have seen neither of these. I suppose it depends on your > > definition of "credible". The major players, Alsys and Rational seem > > to be getting stonger than ever. And the last few months have seen > > the emergence of ACT. > > Well one of the companies you sight "Alsys" no longer exists. They > are part of "Telesoft"... Oh no now both "Alsys" and "Telesoft" no longer > exist they're "Thomson". Well there's "Verdix" oh wait that's part of > "Rational". From conversations with "Rational" what they're working That was 2 years ago. The current trend is quite different (If you can even call something a "trend" based on such small numbers). > Yes, but do you know of any major DoD projects that are be developed > using GNAT? When you buy a FREE compiler you get what you pay for. I do know of a couple being proposed using it (remember, GNAT is validated on some platforms, including SGI's). Frankly, I have found that "you get what you pay for" adage quite untrue. In my experience, "you pay what the vendor thinks you can afford (or a little more)" would be more accurate. -- T.E.D. | Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com | | Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net | | URL - http://www.iag.net/~dennison |