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: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ed Falis Subject: Re: C++ Standardization (was: Once again, Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation) Date: 1996/10/13 Message-ID: <326102E9.1246@thomsoft.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 189191694 sender: news@thomsoft.com references: <01bbb57f$7fb59020$72663389@billn.logicon.com> <325BC3B3.41C6@hso.link.com> <325BED6A.63F4@itg-sepg.logicon.com> <325EB65B.132F@thomsoft.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Thomson Software Products mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (Win95; I) Date: 1996-10-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > > > By subset, I simply meant a subset of the full language capabilities in the > RM. There is nothing wrong with subsetting the language by leaving out the > annexes if the application does not need the full language! I would > certainly think that most people would think that "full language" meant > everything in the RM, but you can use any term any way you want! Certainly > for us, full language *does* mean all the capabilities in the RM. Ed said: > > Don't you think you ought to be a little more careful about what you're > writing between the lines? Or should we start slinging mud about the IDE > capabilities of GNAT on various platforms as so mehow making it not a "real" > Ada 95 compiler? Seems of simiar relevance and bogosity. How about lowering > the BS level? > > Well since the idea of optional sections is new in Ada 95, I think it is > important that everyone understand the issues here. TO me it is obfuscatory > to claim you implement the full language and leave out important > capabilities. Yes, these capabilities are optional from a formal > point of view, e.g. for validation, but if you need the capabilities, > then they are definitely not optional. > > As for "mud" slinging, the TSP salesfolks definitely emphasize what they > feel is their superior IDE capabilities, and I don't think of it as mud > at all. It's perfectly natural that different companies stress different > aspects, and emphasize them. That's what competition is all about! In > fact we regard the open GNAT environment as having advantages over IDE's > for many people, since it is much easier to put together the tool set > you want from standard tools. But that's something users have to decide > for themselves! > > Robert Dewar > Ada Core Technologies. I'm not intending to beat a dead horse here, and I have no problem with up front competition, or with different companies emphasising different aspects of an offer as being more important. What I have a problem with is the kind of "spin" we've all become familiar with from politics, where a term with certain connotations in a community ("subset" in this case) is IMPLICITLY redefined in order to cause people to associate negative connotations with other people's offerings. And as far as I can see, this is exactly what was happening in that post, complete with the plausible deniability of your explicit "Oh well, I really meant "dah-dah-dah.." in the followup. We're a small enough community, with enough external "challenges" that we can probably afford to keep the quality of competition a little higher. That's my point, and I don't really intend to say more. -- Ed Falis Thomson Software Products (617) 221-7341