"Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> a �crit dans le
message news: Yjoj5DGkwoqg@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> There was no international standard for Java at the time the Ada95
> standard was developed.  In fact, the only guidance on what constitutes
> "Java" still comes from just one vendor (Sun), doesn't it ?

Yes, but notice that "standard" can be a matter of fact and wide acceptance
which doesn't necessarily require a RM, at least in the beginning.

> Typically those who adopt Ada are interested in "more correct" and
> "easier to maintain" rather than "easier to write".

we adopted Ada before 1990. "correct" is not so easy to define.
actually if there is no standard of fact, and too few users
it can be "easier to maintain" as well as "easier to write" to write
directly in Java,
than to use an interface which could disappear or let you in a nightmare if
each provider chose different options.

We have a strong standard and a RM for Ada95, and you sometime still have to
care if you want your Ada sources to be the same for Gnat, Objectada and
Apex