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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-11 05:38:43 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!nf3.bellglobal.com!wn1feed!worldnet.att.net!135.173.83.54!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3CB583D6.9000104@worldnet.att.net> From: Jim Rogers User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Development process in the Ada community References: <3CB46975.90408@snafu.de> <3CB516E1.9030008@snafu.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:38:43 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.86.33.171 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1018528723 12.86.33.171 (Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:38:43 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:38:43 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22356 Date: 2002-04-11T12:38:43+00:00 List-Id: Michael Erdmann wrote: > If you compare Ada 95 with Java, then the interesting points are > not the languages it self, but the quick development of supporting > components around it. If you take Ada 95 there is only a very > limited set of predefined libraries standarized and thats it, > nothing else. With JPC this is completly different! > > What i like to say it that not the language Ada is the illness, > but the process around it which does not generate the dynamic > as i would expect it from a language which is a live. Let's look at recent results of JPC efforts. j2sdk1.4.0 contains a new package java.nio. This package attempts to provide high performance I/O for Java. It provides direct access to a unix-like select command, as well as memory-mapped files, explicit buffers, and character translation. The "n" in "nio" stands for "new". This is a terrible name for a package. Beyond that quibble is the fact that this package seriously violates one of the foundation principles of the Java language. Java has always advertised the concept of "write once, run anywhere". One consequence of this goal is that Java could not support OS specific behavior, since that behavior could not be implemented anywhere. The java.nio package abandons that goal and implements I/O features not found on all OS platforms. It also provides an I/O model which is incompatible with the I/O defined in the java.io package. This is an example of rapid change without regard to its effect on the overall language principles. I do not want to see such rapid development results applied to Ada. Jim Rogers