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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3db17e1869f3a33d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: pautet@email.enst.fr (Laurent Pautet) Subject: Re: Ada95 Streams Question Date: 1996/06/24 Message-ID: <4qmfo3$5f5@scapin.enst.fr>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 161868762 sender: pautet@scapin.enst.fr references: <9606232338.AA12517@nile.gnat.com> <4qlshm$1j9e@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 organization: Ecole Nationale Superieure des Telecommunications mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-06-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: wrote: | If you just look at the wording of this annex the big picture is a | huge monolithic program that is now broken into pieces (partitions) | and executed as a whole on a homogenous network of computers. This wording is the *spirit* of the annex. And not a restriction. Everything is there to do whatever you want. Especially multiprogramming in an heterogenous network. | That is definitely not what I understand by distributed computing. | Although this could certainly be interpreted in a more open way, this | is exactly what is currently implemented for GNAT. GNAT implements what has been defined in the LRM in order to validate. The annex has been implemented in order to work in the context you mentionned above. But it is also working in other situations. "monolithic application + homogenous network" is a minimum, but nothing prevents GNAT distributed annex from having a design that allows you to develop a "multiprogram application + an heterogenous network". There are already examples of multiprograms communicating by using distributed objects. Moreover, nothing prevents GNAT from adding new features as long as the default behaviour follows the LRM. | This is not meant as a criticism of the GNAT team. They do a marvelous | job and just implemented what the standard suggests. I just want the | Ada community to reconsider the real "openness" of Ada with respect to | heterogeneous computer environments and client server computing. I agree that some implementation restrictions are too strong if we consider what is outside the Ada community and we can argue on them. Once again, the default compilor behaviour has to follow these restrictions, but nothing prevents a compilor vendor to bypass these implementation restrictions in a second step. -- -- Laurent