Re: AuroraUX Combines SunOS with Ada

[Per Sandberg <per.sandberg@bredband.net>]

Well I do not understand this statement since adding extra pieces of 
code aka plug-ins is very simple to achieve with any language and with 
Ada you get the safety as a bonus.
And also separate runtime and compile time since in practice when 
talking GCC/GNAT you could assume the following.
* Any source language could be used produce dynamically loaded libraries.
* Dynamically loaded libraries could be loaded given that their 
prerequisites are fulfilled.
* Dynamically loaded libraries could be build if their prerequisites are 
fulfilled.
So with Ada usually the list of prerequisite is a "bit" more explicit 
then with traditional weak typed languages such as C/C++, but apart from 
that the languages are equal when it comes to dynamic loading etcetera.
So that means that the compiler will bite you instead of the system some 
time in the future.

/Per



Ivan Levashew wrote:
> anon wrote:
>>
>> But to show the true power of what an Ada OS can do, the entire 
>> project from the ground up must be created in 100% Ada. Not just using 
>> Ada to rebuild an existing OS or to build a environmental shell like 
>> Windows on top of DOS was.
> There's absolutely no need to do 100% Ada environment. After all, it's 
> not simple. How do you suppose to manage version inconsistencies? Ada is 
> better suited for environments where every piece is fixed after 
> compilation and thus the whole program can be observed by compiler. It 
> is OK for embedded solutions. If you want to target dekstops, you need:
> 1) either binary platform (e. g. XPCOM, GLib, NSObject) that makes 
> possible changing different pieces without rebuilding the whole program. 
> Pure GNAT programs/libraries are even sensitive to compiler version.
> 2) or create an Ada virtual machine. Did you have BlueBottle or Inferno 
> in mind?
> 
> There are little desktop/server areas where one can exploit the full 
> power of Ada. First of all, it should be OK to recompile everything.
> 1. NAS distroes. Several NASes give ability to run custom software, and 
> FreeNAS is the example of such software. It can be single solid program 
> as well.
> 2. Ada CMS. It is also OK here to recompile everything. Recompiling 
> doesn't differ much from Zend Optimizing and the like.
> 
> In other cases the best way would be to forget all that false proudness. 
> 100% pragmatic as opposed to 100% Ada. We need to do the same (or nearly 
> the same) things as the others. If you look at GLib, Qt and NSObject 
> frameworks, you can see the common details:
> 1. Loosy structures. Arrays and dictionaries, most commonly. There is 
> GArray in GLib despite existence of arrays in C. Loosy structures enable 
> structure-agnostic data processing.
> 2. Some kind of component model.
> 
> First of all, there is a field for improvements here. Code generators 
> might create typed views on loosy structures. And the component model is 
> even wider field for improvements. I don't think that any of the 
> existing framework is the last word.
> 
> Dmitry Kazakov many times demanded multiple dispatch. AFAIK there is no 
> component model with MI support yet.
> 
> On the other hand there seem to be just 2 platforms allowing both local 
> and remote interoperation: COM and NSObject. XPCOM is only local 
> (1-process), UNO and CORBA are only remote.
>