Re: Delphi and SGI's GNAT Ada access of C++ class libraries

Re: Delphi and SGI's GNAT Ada access of C++ class libraries

[Robert Dewar]

Most peculiar, and a little unfortunate, that Colin James III does not
follow his own advice and wastes his time following comp.lang.ada.
Colin, your post was full of techni9cal misinformation, but I suppose
there is no point in posting details to a newsgroup which you won't
be reading anyway :-)

ANyway, for those interested in knowing about the technical issues of
the GNAT/C++ interface, technical documentation is available by
anonymous ftp from cs.nyu.edu. 

Re: Delphi and SGI's GNAT Ada access of C++ class libraries

[David Weller]

In article <199411200820.IAA02428@stout.entertain.com>,
Colin James III  <cjames@STOUT.ENTERTAIN.COM> wrote:
>What is the programming language Delphi?  If it's new, it's so new that
>there is no comp.lang.delphi newsgroup.  (Is this Oracle's way of making
>a bad pun?)
>
Delphi is Borland's new app builder.  It is pretty awesome.

>Regarding SGI using GNAT to access SGI's C++ class libraries, so what.
>Eiffel has *always* been able to access C libraries directly;  and Eiffel
>3 (with concurrent processes matching Ada-83 tasks) has absolutely all
>the functionality (and more) than Ada-9x.  What SGI is claiming is in
>fact no big deal;  it's been done before.  Also Eiffel is infinitely more
>portable because there are more ANSI C/C++ compilers than hardware
>platforms supported by Ada-83/9x.
>
Infinitely?  Gee, I guess it's time to switch to Eiffel.  Powerful
applications in less than a microsecond.

>The Ada community should also really question the necessity, propriety,
>and usefulness of having comp.lang.ada or info-ada@vm1.nodak.edu forums
>because Ada is going away.  Oh yes, Don Reifer trumphets that AJPO is
>going to have something as a Turbo Ada from some vendor as Borland at
>some price as $99 per copy, but even that won't save Ada.  Reason:  the
>many other ills of government sponsorship documented by Gregory Aharonian
>and Ralph Crafts.  Note:  those writers actually underestimate how badly
>government is broken throughout;  it's endemic and magnitudes worse than
>they (or most readers of this) realize.
>
Greg Aharonian, now _there's_ a bastion of solid journalism.  Yup.  

>Analogy is the weakest form of argument.  However the cutest analogy I can
>come up with is this:  Teen Ada is to Eiffel as is Teen OS/2 to Windows NT.

I rather like that analogy.  I never thought I'd thank Colin in
public for something (not that I could send him e-mail :-)

>Stop wasting your time with Ada, folks;  it is too far gone to redeem.
>We will see, won't we.
>

*Whew*  I for one am glad that person is abandoning Ada and going to
the Eiffel camp.  One less raving lunatic as I see it :-)


-- 
Proud (and vocal) member of Team Ada! (and Team OS/2)        ||This is not your
   	      Ada -- Very Cool.  Doesn't Suck.               ||  father's Ada 
For all sorts of interesting Ada tidbits, run the command:   ||________________
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
      Just another dull, stodgy, non-creative developer who uses Ada.

Re: Delphi and SGI's GNAT Ada access of C++ class libraries

[David Emery]

>Ada9x will also be the second standardized OO language (behind Object
>Cobol) as well.   

I don't know where Object Cobol is standardized, but it's NOT ISO.
Ada94 (or Ada95, depending on when the ISO secretariat releases the
document) will be the FIRST standardized object oriented programming
language.

				dave
--
--The preceeding opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
--The MITRE Corporation or its sponsors. 
-- "A good plan violently executed -NOW- is better than a perfect plan
--  next week"                                      George Patton
-- "Any damn fool can write a plan.  It's the execution that gets you
--  all screwed up"                              James Hollingsworth
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Delphi and SGI's GNAT Ada access of C++ class libraries

[Tom Quiggle]

In article <199411200820.IAA02428@stout.entertain.com>, Colin James III <cjames@STOUT.ENTERTAIN.COM> writes:

> Regarding SGI using GNAT to access SGI's C++ class libraries, so what.
> Eiffel has *always* been able to access C libraries directly;  and Eiffel
> 3 (with concurrent processes matching Ada-83 tasks) has absolutely all
> the functionality (and more) than Ada-9x.  What SGI is claiming is in
> fact no big deal;  it's been done before.  

I should know better than to respond to such obvious flame-bait, but what the
heck, I have nothing better to do...   :-)   :-)   :-)

Interfacing to C is not the issue.  Virtually every language ever
ported to to a Unix platform has this capability.  Interfacing to C was
trivial in Ada83.  Of interest is the ability to MEANINGFULLY interface
to a C++ class library -- complete with class extension and specialization.

I was previously unaware of any Eiffel implementation capable of deriving
off of C++ classes, extending such classes, overriding virtual functions
in Eiffel, etc.  If such an implementation exists, I congratulate its author
for providing this useful capability, and would be very interested in how
one goes about using a 200+ class C++ library in Eiffel (I would hate to
reinvent the wheel).  I am well aware of what C programmers and Ada83
programmers have to go through to use existing C++ class libraries, and
I pitty the poor programmer who has to write such code.  

If Ada9X is the second language to provide a truely interoperable
solution to interfacing to C++, so be it.  Ada9x will also be the second
standardized OO language (behind Object Cobol) as well.  Maybe we need
a new catch phrase for Ada9x ... 

    "Ada9x, the first language to do it right for the second time"

>                                             Also Eiffel is infinitely more
> portable because there are more ANSI C/C++ compilers than hardware
> platforms supported by Ada-83/9x.

I find this assertion VERY hard to accept.  There are Ada 83 compilers
available for virtually every software development platform; including
PC's, all popular workstations, IBM mainframes, Cray supercomputers, etc. 
GNAT is available (or can easily be made available) for any platform that
currently supports GCC.  There are Ada cross compilers for 16-bit micros,
the full line of Motorola and Intel 32-bit processors, DSPs, and most
popular RISC chips.  I just don't see anywhere near the same level of
support for Eiffel.

I'm not trying to blast Eiffel.  The last time I looked at the language
(admitedly several years ago) I felt it was probably the best OO language
available at the time.

> [deletia]
> cjames@cec-services.com
> cjames@entertain.com
> cjames@nyx.cs.du.edu

------
Tom Quiggle                                                quiggle@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics					   (415) 390 - 2884

Re: Delphi and SGI's GNAT Ada access of C++ class libraries

[Robert Dewar]

Object COBOL is not, as far as I know, an ISO standard. The new COBOL
standard, including the OO stuff, is not expected to become an ISO
standard until 1977 at the earliest according to the latest post
in comp.lang.cobol.

Ada is indeed the first object oriented langauge to be standarized by ISO

(any counter claims???)

Re: Delphi and SGI's GNAT Ada access of C++ class libraries

[Robb Nebbe]

In article <199411200820.IAA02428@stout.entertain.com>, Colin James III <cjames@STOUT.ENTERTAIN.COM> writes:

|> 
|> Regarding SGI using GNAT to access SGI's C++ class libraries, so what.
|> Eiffel has *always* been able to access C libraries directly;  and Eiffel
|> 3 (with concurrent processes matching Ada-83 tasks) has absolutely all
|> the functionality (and more) than Ada-9x.  What SGI is claiming is in
|> fact no big deal;  it's been done before.  Also Eiffel is infinitely more
|> portable because there are more ANSI C/C++ compilers than hardware
|> platforms supported by Ada-83/9x.

There are a couple of um, ah ... inaccuracies here:

Interfacing with C is not the same as interfacing with C++ (at least
it shouldn't be but that is another thread :-)

Eiffel 3 is not a standard, doesn't include concurrecy and I'm not
aware of any full implementations of Eiffel 3. ISE has a new version
of their compiler comming out which might be a full implementation
but I haven't seen an announcement stating that it is.

Eiffel is a nice language but it seems a bit naive (or worse) to
pretend that it offers all the functionality of Ada94.

- Robb Nebbe

Re: Delphi and SGI's GNAT Ada access of C++ class libraries

[David Weller]

In article <3arptm$cje@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Object COBOL is not, as far as I know, an ISO standard. The new COBOL
>standard, including the OO stuff, is not expected to become an ISO
>standard until 1977 at the earliest according to the latest post
		^^^^
>in comp.lang.cobol.
>
>Ada is indeed the first object oriented langauge to be standarized by ISO
>
>(any counter claims???)
>
I think the counter-claim is embedded in your own message :-)

(Yeah, I know, the first "7" should be a "9", but I couldn't resist
:-)


-- 
Proud (and vocal) member of Team Ada! (and Team OS/2)        ||This is not your
   	      Ada -- Very Cool.  Doesn't Suck.               ||  father's Ada 
For all sorts of interesting Ada tidbits, run the command:   ||________________
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
      Just another dull, stodgy, non-creative developer who uses Ada.

Re: Delphi and SGI's GNAT Ada access of C++ class libraries

[Norman H. Cohen]

In article <3asl9v$2i0@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller) writes: 

|> In article <3arptm$cje@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote: 
|> >Object COBOL is not, as far as I know, an ISO standard. The new COBOL
|> >standard, including the OO stuff, is not expected to become an ISO
|> >standard until 1977 at the earliest according to the latest post
|>                 ^^^^
|> >in comp.lang.cobol.
|> >
|> >Ada is indeed the first object oriented langauge to be standarized by ISO
|> >
|> >(any counter claims???)
|> >
|> I think the counter-claim is embedded in your own message :-)
|>
|> (Yeah, I know, the first "7" should be a "9", but I couldn't resist
|> :-)

Now you tell me!  I wish I had realized this BEFORE I complained to our
systems administrator about two-decade-old articles just now arriving at
our news server.

:-)

--
Norman H. Cohen    ncohen@watson.ibm.com

Re: Delphi and SGI's GNAT Ada access of C++ class libraries

[Garlington KE]

Colin James III (cjames@STOUT.ENTERTAIN.COM) wrote:
: The Ada community should also really question the necessity, propriety,
: and usefulness of having comp.lang.ada or info-ada@vm1.nodak.edu forums
: because Ada is going away.

And yet, every year I see more organizations going to Ada, mandated or not.
I can see why this was sent from ENTERTAIN.COM.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Garlington                  GarlingtonKE@lfwc.lockheed.com
F-22 Computer Resources         Lockheed Fort Worth Co.

If LFWC or the F-22 program has any opinions, they aren't telling me.

Re: Delphi and SGI's GNAT Ada access of C++ class libraries

[Dag Bruck]

>>>>> "R" == Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> writes:

R> Ada is indeed the first object oriented langauge to be standarized
R> by ISO

It may be worth pointing out that Simula has been officially
standardized by some national standardization bodies, although not by
ISO.

For example: Swedish Standard 636114, 20 May 1987.


						-- Dag Bruck