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-Thread: 103376,763b126bf5276f4c
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!195.96.0.7.MISMATCH!newsfeed.utanet.at!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news1.tnib.de!feed.news.tnib.de!news.tnib.de!newsfeed.freenet.ag!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:55:57 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Communications of ACM: Sir, Please Step Away from the ASR-33!
References: 
 <72b8fb96-2b5e-4ef8-8099-39361eeea853@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
 <878vzbwa61.fsf@hugsarin.sparre-andersen.dk>
 <8ns4v1Fk2dU1@mid.individual.net> <2vc8dxz8lc3t$.frc39a6lzjvt.dlg@40tude.net>
 <8ntp4kFo9qU1@mid.individual.net> <9cqhbxmdgs8x.nohduviggb5a$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4d19c37f$0$7669$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <1hd23hih9nr3v$.qzcce27pd1u1.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4d19e020$0$6885$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <1sa8js3de7m9a.1u4v3u0e8fpvy$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4d1a0531$0$6980$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <1hok68cs370tc.1lt858ruxu3m5.dlg@40tude.net>
In-Reply-To: <1hok68cs370tc.1lt858ruxu3m5.dlg@40tude.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4d1b3ded$0$7665$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Dec 2010 14:55:57 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83574d1a.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=>_V[_[SEF]Hgj[ZPFj7ehOic==]BZ:afN4Fo<]lROoRA<`=YMgDjhgBgWaom=?WBlBnc\616M64>JLh>_cHTX3jM4o6ZlO2A7jF
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16223
Date: 2010-12-29T14:55:57+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 28.12.10 17:26, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

>> OTOH, using a notation that provides for any kind of
>> message sent will ipso facto express message sending
>> regardless of implementation (of message sending).
>> Using source templates controlled by a programmer,
>> the model can be mapped to a specific implementation
>> (of message sending).
> 
> So simple? No multicast, unicast, acknowledges, QoS, synchronization,
> routing, balanced load, naming and browsing services,
> connection/disconnection, marshaling, peers, retries, frames and windows,
> state transitions.
> 
> Send a message - done! Do you really believe in THIS?

Absolutely.  Understanding the model will not require
that the model itself provides the fundament of human
understanding.  Whenever the expression
    "Send a message - done!"
answers a question about the functioning of a system,
then indeed, done!

The two teams that Simon has mentioned should
be able to communicate meaningfully this way. For
example, sometimes it is "understood" (borrowing math
speak) what sending a message means, given some architecture.

If more detail is needed, it is up to the model makers
and programmers to agree on a useful rule regarding
specification en detail.