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,f15b862e11b575a4 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!212.27.60.9.MISMATCH!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 01:44:20 +0100 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110123 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Air traffic control system in Java References: <4d6ffe16$0$17930$a8266bb1@postbox2.readnews.com> <4d7007ba$0$17957$a8266bb1@postbox2.readnews.com> <4d7009ba$0$17936$a8266bb1@postbox2.readnews.com> <4d7017e2$0$7659$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <4d7018f0$0$17938$a8266bb1@postbox2.readnews.com> In-Reply-To: <4d7018f0$0$17938$a8266bb1@postbox2.readnews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <4d7035e5$0$6889$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 04 Mar 2011 01:44:21 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: f51bf0a8.newsspool2.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=2X9\M\Ob`UL74okIm;?DS@A9EHlD;3YcB4Fo<]lROoRA8kFejVHMLT9KeH7PcH8TY5P2CCPcL X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17799 Date: 2011-03-04T01:44:21+01:00 List-Id: On 3/3/11 11:40 PM, Hyman Rosen wrote: > On 3/3/2011 5:36 PM, Georg Bauhaus wrote: >> Found this: >> http://www.atego.com/products/aonix-perc-raven/ >> But I think using Java in this case means to use @AnnoTations >> extensively. They will extend Java to be a language better suited. > > I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not. But just in case, > remember ANNA: Yes. (I hope that the aspect specifications of Ada 2012 will be better integrated with the language (and not require any source transformation); certainly this should be the case for Pre, Post, Invariant, and expression functions?) Considering hard real-time support in a language definition, can we not have a language for expressing the recurring patterns that embedded systems programmers have been expressing for years, but, apparently, using means outside the language used? Means like being careful, being smart, being knowledgeable, being proud. Then there are tools that flexibly mimic for C what is built into other languages. Do we have to fool ourselves into thinking that just switching languages is out of the question? What makes us believe that it is easier to integrate two of them, Java and annotations---though not actually creating something really integrated from the start? (I guess that's because ---whichever is the technically flawed language--- we'd have to admit that we have made a mistake by choosing the language and fear the uncertainty of the new or that we will have to give up legacy libraries, or will have to prove certain algorithms again. And give up the language we have chosen aloud. OTOH, starting from scratch is considered a healthy approach, too. I find this contradictory from a technical point of view. Is it economically rational, balanced, impartial?) There is knowledge and experience. Why not condense them into one formalism? Mathematics has little trouble with common formalism. Any differences in mode of expression don't change the subject matter. Looking at special databases for long series of data like stock exchange prices, real-time or past-time (kdb by Kx); a special dialect of APL (k) serves to compute results from those data. In a niche of customers who would use such a system it seemed a good investment; the language is specially made for the purpose. And the thing is being developed as needed, IIUC. (I understand that Sybase has something on offer, too.) But in comparison, real-time systems in general do not really fit a niche, do they? Far too many systems, far to many programmers for a niche. And lots of semi-formal knowledge regarding proper use of (mostly) C. (Somewhat less of "semi" if Ada is used, since Ada formalizes some of the semi-formal knowledge (as was required originally).) Why doesn't industry sit down for a moment and consider what kinds of real-time algorithms they still want to be able to write and then ask for that language? Some days I am dreaming of market pressure exercised by every single customer: we won't pay any compiler maker for two years. Instead, we will spend 100% on thinking about what we want.