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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d3bcc180a8b0eea4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 108abf,d3bcc180a8b0eea4 X-Google-Attributes: gid108abf,public From: Bill Greene Subject: Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] Date: 2000/01/12 Message-ID: <387CEE4A.3965@Ganymede.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 571803536 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <387C8859.621FA20B@netscape.net> <387CC1C0.4C57E34C@quadruscorp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: 12 Jan 2000 16:13:06 -0500, 208.240.117.1 Organization: Ganymede Software, Inc MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,rec.aviation.military Date: 2000-01-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: jtarver wrote: > Ada was originally envisioned to be platform transparent. When Data General > produced the only 100% compliant compliler and the Ada development program > went for the noncompliant VAX as their standard platform that idea was out > the window. I don't understand your statement. IIRC, there was a validated Ada 83 compiler for the Data General (written by Rational?) and there were several validated Ada 83 compilers for the DEC VAX (written by SofTech, DEC, and others). What do you mean by "noncompliant VAX"? FWIW, my experiences with porting Ada (83 or 95) code have been quite satisfactory. -- William R. Greene 1100 Perimeter Park Drive Ganymede Software, Inc. Suite 104 http://www.ganymede.com Morrisville, NC 27560 USA Phone: (919) 469-0997, ext. 280 Fax: (919) 469-5553