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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,be23df8e7e275d73 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-27 04:43:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!proxad.net!feeder2-1.proxad.net!nnrp3.proxad.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "nicolas" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <9jgopl$5v6$1@s1.read.news.oleane.net> <9jh2cs$aon$1@s1.read.news.oleane.net> <2sU67.1485$di7.4670499@nnrp3.proxad.net> <9jhb8u$g3s$1@s1.read.news.oleane.net> <3B5C4A92.647FC2EC@earthlink.net> <2bb77.5186$DL4.5097616@nnrp5.proxad.net> <3B5D5B79.F2DC527E@earthlink.net> <9jp5dc$e2b$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <9jrcmm$mc0$1@aOrganization: LJK Software Subject: Re: Java portability X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Message-ID: <3uc87.930$LE2.3792066@nnrp3.proxad.net> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 11:43:59 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.101.131.241 X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net X-Trace: nnrp3.proxad.net 996234239 195.101.131.241 (Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:43:59 CEST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:43:59 CEST Organization: Guest of ProXad - France Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10632 Date: 2001-07-27T11:43:59+00:00 List-Id: "Larry Kilgallen" 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