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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f849b,857262ad7d0ad537 X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,c2f4cdd9ccfb8ede X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: eric@aerie-pr.com (Eric Roesinger) Subject: Re: How many different processors do you use? Date: 1999/06/20 Message-ID: <376ce5ff@news5.newsfeeds.com> X-Deja-AN: 491830810 X-Abuse-Info2: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Report: Report abuse to abuse@newsfeeds.com References: <7j1qng$4fp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37576ded.26569745@news.mpx.com.au> <7j8ac0$eah$1@uranium.btinternet.com> <7jh07e$tek$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7jhp34$6f1$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7jjij7$qci$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7jk7hk$36s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7jm5pa$ome$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7jmmqi$vm2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7jol96$kji$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7jon3l$ldg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7jot4k$o2s$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Followup-To: comp.lang.ada X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers, INCLUDING the body X-Trace: 20 Jun 1999 08:00:47 -0500, 207.40.154.44 Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 72,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups. Instant access!! Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded,comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-06-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Followups trimmed in an effort to excise this language war from comp.arch.embedded... (*ducking*) rawcswi@my-deja.com wrote in <7jot4k$o2s$1@nnrp1.deja.com>: > In article <7jon3l$ldg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > Robert Dewar wrote: > > In article <7jol96$kji$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > > rawcswi@my-deja.com wrote: > > > In fairness to muddy_buddy, there is a vague connection to > > > reality-- > > > the Reagan administration did have an effect on funding for > > > academic research, for example. And he was talking about the > > > interpretation of Reagan's policies by those who were (in his > > > view) responsible for promoting or not promoting Ada. If the > > > government during the early 80's had dropped a lot of money > > > into promoting Ada use in universities, many of them would > > > have > > > started to use it (it supplied a standardized language with > > > concurrency, exceptions and other things that the more common > > > teaching language Pascal didn't offer) and Ada might be more > > > popular today (popular as it may be in some areas, I haven't > > > seen > > > much use for my modest knowledge of Ada except to speed > > > learning of Oracle PL/SQL). > > > > But this simply does not reflect reality. > > What doesn't reflect reality? You seem to have agreed with all > the individual statements above. How can you know how much > the tastes of program managers at NSF or ARPA were influenced > by the political climate of the time? Without certainty on that issue, > you can't say whether the Reagan administration's policies alone > had a positive or negative effect on promoting Ada within universities, > and I think that's enough to support a vague connection to reality. > (On the whole, I don't agree with muddy_buddy's claim, but I think > there's enough to justify requesting the additional information you > give below.) > > > Yes, it is true that > > the NSF was reluctant to support Ada research in universities, > > but as anyone around at the time knows, that had NOTHING AT ALL > > to do with the Reagen administration, it was simply a reflection > > of tastes of the program managers at NSF. ARPA was also not > > particularly enthusiastic about Ada support, again, not lack of > > resources, but lack of interest on the part of the program > > managers. I visited ARPA a number of times to lobby for support > > for a freely available Ada compiler, but without success. Note > > that it was a HECK of a fight to make the Ada/Ed sources freely > > available, but again that had NOTHING AT ALL to do with the > > Reagen administration. > > Well, the Reagan administration did have a substantial impact on > academic research funding; but I would have been surprised if > that had included military related research funding. And if there > was reluctance to put the funding that did exist into Ada, then > the existence of additional funding might not have made much > difference. But your comments above do support a claim that > the government failed to promote Ada adequately, outside of > universities, if even ARPA and NSF weren't enthusiastic about it. > > > (it is easy to see how conspiracy theories get started :-) > > A good conspiracy theory thrives on a vague connection to > reality; no connection or a firm connection would probably kill it. > > > > But the Reagan administration also put a lot of money into the > > > military, which must have included Ada (what were they > > > planning to program the Strategic Defense Initiative in?) > > > > Yes, and the DoD via the AJPO actually provided substantial > > funds to encourage the use of Ada in universities. I doubt > > in fact that lack of money was a real issue. It is generally > > rather difficult to get funds for supporting development of > > new courses in universities, but it was relatively easy to > > do so for development of Ada related courses, and indeed Ada > > had and continues to have some success as a language used to > > teach computing in universities. > > I was a graduate student in CS through 1985; Ada was a prime > example for courses because it had a lot of interesting features, > but no compiler was available in our department at that time. > Would more money have made a free compiler available? Would it > have made the department more inclined to commit to Ada as a > future teaching language when compilers would become available? > Maybe. Your comments seem to indicate that the vision and will > to pursue such a strategy to promote Ada was more lacking than > the funding. > > > > and my impression > > > of the history of GNAT is that the government funded the > > > initia GPLed Ada compiler (GNAT or the GNAT precursor?), as a > > > conscious choice to make an Ada compiler freely available. > > > > Well I guess that does show that you were not intimately > > involved with the details of the history here if that is > > only an "impression". Yes, indeed, the GNAT project was funded > > (at about the 3 million dollar level over four years) by the > > DoD. > > I don't believe I claimed to have any involvement. (And there are > still aspects of Ada history that are hard to obtain information about > if you weren't involved (for example, details of the non-Green > languages), despite the impressive web resources for Ada.) > > > > Is > > > this an accurate > > > understanding of the lobbying and support from Chris Anderson > > > you refer to? > > > > Chris Anderson, as Ada 9X Project Director, was the contract > > administrator for this contract. She found the funding, and she > > was the one who pushed the contract through, and also provided > > us support at all levels (in particular, she also fought to > > defend the project against very fierce attacks from some of the > > commercial Ada vendors who tried to have the project killed). > > > > I think there is no question that a GNAT-like product for Ada 83 > > would have been a big help. It did not happen for many reasons, > > none of which are even vaguely related to the Reagen > > administration (goodness, next you will be blaming the > > man for the common cold :-) > > (Not to pursue conspiracy theories too far, but the Reagan > administration's plan to compromise school lunch nutrition > by declaring ketchup a vegetable might have made colds > more common; his administration certainly pursued some policies > that had a negative impact on public health in general.) > > Any federal spending or non-spending during the 80s must have > had some _vague_ relationship to the Reagan administration > (which would have had to, at some high level, approve such > spending). But it is clear from your comments that the funding > available to promote Ada was not the major issue, and another > administration with less interest in military spending might have > been worse for Ada. > -- Eric G. Roesinger, Member Technical Staff ====== roesingere@indy.tce.com INH620 Communications Product Development ====== ======================= PO Box 6139--Thomson Consumer Electronics ====== ==== 317 587-6431 ==== Indianapolis, IN 46206-6139 USA ====== ==== FAX 587-6431 ==== -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----