* Re: Limitations of Ada
@ 1996-07-29 0:00 Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
1996-07-30 0:00 ` Kazimir Majorinc
0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread
From: Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93 @ 1996-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
David Weller <dweller@DFW.NET> writes:
>In article <31F54DE2.6EBF@acm.org>, Bob Munck <munck@acm.org> wrote:
>>Ada is unable to exceed the speed of light.
>
>Rumor has it that IBM is working on a practical solution to this by
>redefining 'c' :-) (A dual pun if there ever was :-)
>
But have you heard of IBMs new ultra-super-computer? It's supposed
to be so fast that it will execute an infinite loop in three
minutes.
186,000 mi/sec. It's not just a good idea... It's the law!
MDC
Marin David Condic, Senior Computer Engineer ATT: 407.796.8997
M/S 731-96 Technet: 796.8997
Pratt & Whitney, GESP Fax: 407.796.4669
P.O. Box 109600 Internet: CONDICMA@PWFL.COM
West Palm Beach, FL 33410-9600 Internet: CONDIC@FLINET.COM
===============================================================================
"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force.
Like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
-- George Washington
===============================================================================
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-29 0:00 Limitations of Ada Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93 @ 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Kazimir Majorinc 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff ` (6 more replies) 0 siblings, 7 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Kazimir Majorinc @ 1996-07-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Hello everybody! This are limitations of Ada: 1) Not 100 % OO, see Smalltalk 2) Without distributed objects, see Modula-3 3) Lack of MACROS, see C++ 4) Small number of operators to overload, see C++ 5) Lack of multiple inheritance, see C++ 6) Big language, see BASIC But, I love her more than C++ although I did wrote only 'hello world' in Ada. ________________________________________________ Author: Kazimir Majorinc, Education: dipl. ing. mathematics Address: Vinagorska 7, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia. Work: prof. math. & comp.sci. XIII. Gimnazija, Zagreb, Croatia E-mail address: Kazimir.Majorinc@public.srce.hr ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ One who know the secret of the seventh stair ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Kazimir Majorinc @ 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (5 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Brian Rogoff @ 1996-07-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) kmajor@jagor.srce.hr (Kazimir Majorinc) writes: Hello everybody! Hi! This are limitations of Ada: 1) Not 100 % OO, see Smalltalk Not a limitation. Ada allows you to write code at a lower level than Smalltalk. I see this as a feature, Ada 95 is a multiparadigm language. 2) Without distributed objects, see Modula-3 A distributed object system could be written in Ada. See also the Distributed Systems Annex of Ada 95. 3) Lack of MACROS, see C++ I'm sympathetic, since I know real (Lisp, not C++) macros are powerful, but I found reading Common Lisp macro code pretty painful. Maybe the pain subsides after a lot of reading, but I understand the argument in favor of readability here. Besides, you can always write a macro language for Ada if you really want. There is just no "standard" one. 4) Small number of operators to overload, see C++ Agreed. But where do you stop? Do you allow user defined operators? I suppose I would like to be able to create user defined arrays that behaved just like built-ins. 5) Lack of multiple inheritance, see C++ Show me a problem which requires MI and can't be solved fairly easily in Ada 95. There are quite a few online papers describing what you can do. 6) Big language, see BASIC Is that a limitation? -- Brian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Kazimir Majorinc 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff @ 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1996-07-31 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff ` (4 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1996-07-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kazimir commented on alledged limitations of Ada 1) Not 100 % OO, see Smalltalk Shrug, this is more of a religeous comment than a technical one! 2) Without distributed objects, see Modula-3 This is wrong, read annex E 3) Lack of MACROS, see C++ This is an intentional part of the design, see Steelman 4) Small number of operators to overload, see C++ Incomprehensible, all operators and subprograms are overloadable in Ada 5) Lack of multiple inheritance, see C++ Not necessarily a lack at all, see Tucker Taft's paper 6) Big language, see BASIC More of a comment, than a limitation. After all you could equally say that it is a limitation of BASIC that it is a small language. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Kazimir Majorinc 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1996-07-31 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff 1996-07-31 0:00 ` Fraser Wilson ` (3 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Brian Rogoff @ 1996-07-31 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: Kazimir commented on alledged limitations of Ada 4) Small number of operators to overload, see C++ Incomprehensible, all operators and subprograms are overloadable in Ada I expect that what Kazimir meant was something like 4) Small number of binary infix (and unary prefix ) operators whose meanings can be assigned by the user. Overloading is an orthogonal issue; note that Eiffel 3 allows one to define brand new infix operators, but does not have overloading. This is a legitimate complaint. I have wanted additional operators for image processing operations. However, it is not really a "limitation", just a tiny syntactic inconvenience. I assume the same reasoning that led to the ban on macros (readability and potential for abuse) led to this decision. -- Brian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Kazimir Majorinc ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1996-07-31 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff @ 1996-07-31 0:00 ` Fraser Wilson 1996-07-31 0:00 ` Robert A Duff ` (2 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Fraser Wilson @ 1996-07-31 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) kmajor@jagor.srce.hr (Kazimir Majorinc) writes: >This are limitations of Ada: As Douglas Adams would say, this is obviously some new use of the word "limitation" that I haven't been previously aware of. :-) >1) Not 100 % OO, see Smalltalk That's good, because OO isn't appropriate for everything. >2) Without distributed objects, see Modula-3 Depending on your definition of distributed objects, Annexe E is probably what you're looking for. >3) Lack of MACROS, see C++ Lack of macros is known as a Good Thing. >4) Small number of operators to overload, see C++ Also known as a Good Thing. >5) Lack of multiple inheritance, see C++ Does this mean that multiple inheritance in C++ is the One True Way? There's different ways of doing MI, and it's not clear which flavour is best. Under such conditions, it seems that leaving it out of the standard was a good decision. >6) Big language, see BASIC So is C++. In fact, the C++ standard is bigger than the Ada standard. However, Ada is very good at letting you take only the bits you need. >But, I love her more than C++ although I did wrote only 'hello world' >in Ada. It's a good start. And she is fabulous :-) Fraser. -- ____ Fraser Wilson | email: fraser@cs.mu.oz.au __o \ / The more I learn of | voice: +61 3 9287 9193 _-\<,_ \/ C++, the more I like | fax: +61 3 9348 1184 (_)/ (_) --- Ada 95 --- | www: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fraser/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Kazimir Majorinc ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 1996-07-31 0:00 ` Fraser Wilson @ 1996-07-31 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1996-08-01 0:00 ` Spasmo 1996-08-01 0:00 ` Bob Kitzberger 6 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 1996-07-31 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <4tlpfa$cr9@bagan.srce.hr>, Kazimir Majorinc <kmajor@jagor.srce.hr> wrote: >This are limitations of Ada: >... >2) Without distributed objects, see Modula-3 Ada has this. See E.4.2. - Bob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Kazimir Majorinc ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 1996-07-31 0:00 ` Robert A Duff @ 1996-08-01 0:00 ` Spasmo 1996-08-08 0:00 ` mpost 1996-08-01 0:00 ` Bob Kitzberger 6 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Spasmo @ 1996-08-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kazimir Majorinc (kmajor@jagor.srce.hr) wrote: : Hello everybody! : This are limitations of Ada: : 1) Not 100 % OO, see Smalltalk Why is this a limitation? Not being 100% OO is not a limitation, it's a design decision. You can use OO in Ada or you can choose not to, this to me is a superior choice to being forced to use OO in a 100% OO language like Smalltalk. : 2) Without distributed objects, see Modula-3 Not quite sure what you mean by this. : 3) Lack of MACROS, see C++ That's an advantage. If you notice in C++ one of the first things they tell you when you get to inlining functions is "Now you don't have to use macros!". Since macros are textual substitution you can really mess things up in a big way. Arguments to function like macros aren't evaluated which can lead to innaccurate results (this is a famous problem of macros, therefore the ugly notation where everything is fully parenthesized in an attempt to combat this deficency), and since macros are just pure textual substitution you can do some very strange things with them that can send readability out the window. You can assemble functions to be called that won't be seen until preprocessing time, you can have really wacked out notation, etc... C can keep its macros, I couldn't care less about them. I've done fine without them in other languages and I have no doubt I will continue to do well without them in the future. : 4) Small number of operators to overload, see C++ This is a two pronged situation. On the one hand you've got a ton of C++ operators which are really useful for saving typing and obfusicating code (something C and C++ are famous for), but in all reality they don't do anything new. ie: ++, --, +=, etc... are just shorthand and can be accomplished by the standard operators +, and -. I was about to get on a tangent about C++ and how the way it treats operators plays havoc with generic functions (requiring ugly hacks and kludges) but I won't :) : 5) Lack of multiple inheritance, see C++ There are those who would say this is an advantage. Even in C++ folks recommend that if you use multiple inheritance, you do so very sparingly and if I'm not mistaken there was serious consideration as to whether or not include this "feature" since many say it does more harm than good. : 6) Big language, see BASIC Even if it is, so what? As long as a language is easy to use, powerful, and helps me produce better programs, I couldn't care less about the size. : But, I love her more than C++ although I did wrote only 'hello world' : in Ada. I've done more, and while I'm still an Ada newbie, I can say that this is one sweet language. The more I look at Ada, the more I look down on C and C++. : ________________________________________________ : Author: Kazimir Majorinc, : Education: dipl. ing. mathematics : Address: Vinagorska 7, : 10 000 Zagreb, : Croatia. : Work: prof. math. & comp.sci. : XIII. Gimnazija, Zagreb, Croatia : E-mail address: Kazimir.Majorinc@public.srce.hr : ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ : One who know the secret of the seventh stair -- Spasmo "Everyone has secrets, but sometimes you get caught, So if it's just between us, my silence can be bought" "Blackmail" by Sloppy Seconds ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-08-01 0:00 ` Spasmo @ 1996-08-08 0:00 ` mpost 0 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: mpost @ 1996-08-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Spasmo (cosc19z5@Bayou.UH.EDU) wrote: : Kazimir Majorinc (kmajor@jagor.srce.hr) wrote: : : 5) Lack of multiple inheritance, see C++ : : There are those who would say this is an advantage. Even in C++ : folks recommend that if you use multiple inheritance, you do so : very sparingly and if I'm not mistaken there was serious consideration : as to whether or not include this "feature" since many say it does : more harm than good. Just a side note, I've been watching this thread as an interested student of computer science who knows C++ but currently has an internship with a DoD contractor doing Ada coding. As far as MI goes, you're invited to check out a paper I wrote for my OOP class which discusses MI. I found it to be an interesting topics and I welcome comments both on the subject and the paper. The paper can be found on my homepage at http://w3.gwis.com/~mpost. Mike ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Kazimir Majorinc ` (5 preceding siblings ...) 1996-08-01 0:00 ` Spasmo @ 1996-08-01 0:00 ` Bob Kitzberger 1996-08-02 0:00 ` Jack W Scheible 6 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Bob Kitzberger @ 1996-08-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kazimir Majorinc (kmajor@jagor.srce.hr) wrote: : This are limitations of Ada: : 3) Lack of MACROS, see C++ That's a feature. -- Bob Kitzberger Rational Software Corporation rlk@rational.com http://www.rational.com http://www.rational.com/pst/products/testmate.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-08-01 0:00 ` Bob Kitzberger @ 1996-08-02 0:00 ` Jack W Scheible 1996-08-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1996-08-03 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 0 siblings, 2 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Jack W Scheible @ 1996-08-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <4tr86p$fvd@rational.rational.com> rlk@rational.com (Bob Kitzberger) writes: >Kazimir Majorinc (kmajor@jagor.srce.hr) wrote: > >: This are limitations of Ada: >: 3) Lack of MACROS, see C++ > >That's a feature. > There is no reason at all that the C pre-processor cannot be run on Ada source before sending it to the compiler. Therefore, one _can_ use macros, but it is neither standard nor advisable - macros can be a source of very hard-to-find bugs. -jack ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-08-02 0:00 ` Jack W Scheible @ 1996-08-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1996-08-03 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1996-08-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Jack said "There is no reason at all that the C pre-processor cannot be run on Ada source before sending it to the compiler. Therefore, one _can_ use macros, but it is neither standard nor advisable - macros can be a source of very hard-to-find bugs." Actually there is one reason: attributes will cause troubles, since they don't look like valid C tokens. But largely this is true, and in any case, other macro processors can be used. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-08-02 0:00 ` Jack W Scheible 1996-08-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1996-08-03 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 1996-08-05 0:00 ` Jack W Scheible 1 sibling, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Keith Thompson @ 1996-08-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In <4tsvs7$ctk@portal.gmu.edu> jscheibl@mason2.gmu.edu (Jack W Scheible) writes: > There is no reason at all that the C pre-processor cannot be > run on Ada source before sending it to the compiler. Therefore, > one _can_ use macros, but it is neither standard nor advisable - > macros can be a source of very hard-to-find bugs. Actually, there is a reason. The C preprocessor chokes on some Ada constructs. The ISO C standard requires the input to the preprocessing phase to be a valid token stream. I don't remember the exact details, but one consequence is that an apostrophe that's not part of a character literal (e.g., in an Ada attribute) is illegal. Here's an example: package Foo is #ifdef FIRST X : Integer := Integer'First; #else X : Integer := Integer'Last; #endif end Foo; The "cc -E" command under Solaris complains: "foo.ads", line 5: invalid input token: 'Last; Of course, there's nothing in the ISO C standard that requires the preprocessor to exist as a separate program, or "cc -E" to behave in any particular fashion. Similarly, there's nothing preventing someone from implementing a C-like preprocessor with fewer restrictions. However, using the C preprocessor on Ada code is likely to cause problems, as the example above shows. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@thomsoft.com <*> TeleSoft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Alsys^H^H^H^H^H Thomson Software Products 10251 Vista Sorrento Parkway, Suite 300, San Diego, CA, USA, 92121-2718 "As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from government intrusion." -- ACLU v. Reno ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-08-03 0:00 ` Keith Thompson @ 1996-08-05 0:00 ` Jack W Scheible 0 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Jack W Scheible @ 1996-08-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <DvJyKB.9DC@thomsoft.com> kst@thomsoft.com (Keith Thompson) writes: >In <4tsvs7$ctk@portal.gmu.edu> jscheibl@mason2.gmu.edu (Jack W Scheible) writes: >> There is no reason at all that the C pre-processor cannot be >> run on Ada source before sending it to the compiler. Therefore, >> one _can_ use macros, but it is neither standard nor advisable - >> macros can be a source of very hard-to-find bugs. > >Actually, there is a reason. The C preprocessor chokes on some Ada >constructs. The ISO C standard requires the input to the preprocessing >phase to be a valid token stream. I don't remember the exact details, >but one consequence is that an apostrophe that's not part of a character >literal (e.g., in an Ada attribute) is illegal. > >Here's an example: > >package Foo is >#ifdef FIRST > X : Integer := Integer'First; >#else > X : Integer := Integer'Last; >#endif >end Foo; > >The "cc -E" command under Solaris complains: > >"foo.ads", line 5: invalid input token: 'Last; > The above code works just fine with the command "cpp -P" under Solaris. It is _still_ a bad idea. -jack ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Limitations of Ada @ 1996-07-19 0:00 The Quelisher 1996-07-20 0:00 ` Michael Feldman ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: The Quelisher @ 1996-07-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) With all this discussion about programming different things ins Ada, I got to thinking......Just what are the limitations of the language? I mean, is it versitile enough to program a Windows program then turn right back around and make a kernel? Just letting curiosity get the better of me... -- #-----------------------------------------------------------------# | _ __ __ | | \\ \ \ / / | | \\ GO __ \ \/ / __ | | \\ TALLAHASSEE * 1971 Karmann Ghia * \ \ \ / / / | | \\ TIGERSHARKS! * Coupe * \ \/ \/ / | | \\____ \ /\ / | | \_XXX) \/ \/ | | | | Live Long and Quelish!....................Kendal | #-----------------------------------------------------------------# ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-19 0:00 The Quelisher @ 1996-07-20 0:00 ` Michael Feldman 1996-07-21 0:00 ` Nasser Abbasi ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Michael Feldman @ 1996-07-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <31EF79A3.812@freenet.scri.fsu.edu>, The Quelisher <kendal@freenet.scri.fsu.edu> wrote: >With all this discussion about programming different things ins Ada, I >got to thinking......Just what are the limitations of the language? I >mean, is it versitile enough to program a Windows program then turn right >back around and make a kernel? Yes. It's as versatile as any other language; it is general-purpose. I often wonder why anyone would think otherwise? >Just letting curiosity get the better of me... Why not satisfy that curiosity by giving it a try? Mike Feldman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-19 0:00 The Quelisher 1996-07-20 0:00 ` Michael Feldman @ 1996-07-21 0:00 ` Nasser Abbasi 1996-07-23 0:00 ` Bob Munck 1996-07-22 0:00 ` Klaus Wyss 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Theodore E. Dennison 3 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Nasser Abbasi @ 1996-07-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) >From: The Quelisher <kendal@freenet.scri.fsu.edu> >With all this discussion about programming different things ins Ada, I >got to thinking......Just what are the limitations of the language? I >mean, is it versitile enough to program a Windows program then turn right >back around and make a kernel? >Just letting curiosity get the better of me... Ada has no known limitations. bye, Nasser -- Nasser Abbasi. C/C++/Ada Solaris. GeneAssist - A client/server application for Nucleic acid and protein sequence search and analysis. Perkin Elmer - Applied BioSystem division. email: nasser@apldbio.com MSEE(control), MSCS, MSCE, FM (Fide Chess Master). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-21 0:00 ` Nasser Abbasi @ 1996-07-23 0:00 ` Bob Munck 1996-07-24 0:00 ` David Kristola ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Bob Munck @ 1996-07-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) >From: The Quelisher <kendal@freenet.scri.fsu.edu> >With all this discussion about programming different things ins Ada, I >got to thinking......Just what are the limitations of the language? > Ada is unable to exceed the speed of light. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-23 0:00 ` Bob Munck @ 1996-07-24 0:00 ` David Kristola 1996-07-24 0:00 ` Ron Thompson 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 1996-07-29 0:00 ` David Weller 2 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: David Kristola @ 1996-07-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article 6EBF@acm.org, Bob Munck <munck@acm.org> () writes: >>From: The Quelisher <kendal@freenet.scri.fsu.edu> >>With all this discussion about programming different things ins Ada, I >>got to thinking......Just what are the limitations of the language? >> > >Ada is unable to exceed the speed of light. I have been unable to write Ada code that reads a user's mind. david kristola Work: davidk@os1.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com Play: DJKristola@aol.com My suggestion for Lockheed Martin's next slogan: "Lockheed Martin, we make things that go BOOM!" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-24 0:00 ` David Kristola @ 1996-07-24 0:00 ` Ron Thompson 1996-07-26 0:00 ` Ken Garlington 0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Ron Thompson @ 1996-07-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) davidk@OS2.ifs (David Kristola) wrote: > >My suggestion for Lockheed Martin's next slogan: >"Lockheed Martin, we make things that go BOOM!" > Yeah, I snipped all the other about C/C++/Ada, Ada limitations, Java vs Freeze_Dried, etc. The suggestion above is what is REALLY important in any discussion of real time embedded old crap that MOST of us have to support. At least around here anyway. That, David, is an excellent suggestion. There was a list floating around a couple of months ago that outlined some really good ones for the slogan du jour. Try to get yours on it! A good laugh here that was. LM probably laughed too. rct The opinions above are mine and mine alone. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-24 0:00 ` Ron Thompson @ 1996-07-26 0:00 ` Ken Garlington 1996-07-29 0:00 ` Byron B. Kauffman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Ken Garlington @ 1996-07-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ron Thompson wrote: > > davidk@OS2.ifs (David Kristola) wrote: > > >My suggestion for Lockheed Martin's next slogan: > >"Lockheed Martin, we make things that go BOOM!" > > That, David, is an excellent suggestion. Of course, for us LM types that build flight control systems, we might prefer: "Lockheed Martin, we make things that make _other_ things go BOOM!" since, when _our_ systems go BOOM, this is considered a Bad Thing :) -- LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-26 0:00 ` Ken Garlington @ 1996-07-29 0:00 ` Byron B. Kauffman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Byron B. Kauffman @ 1996-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ken Garlington wrote: > > Ron Thompson wrote: > > > > davidk@OS2.ifs (David Kristola) wrote: > > > > >My suggestion for Lockheed Martin's next slogan: > > >"Lockheed Martin, we make things that go BOOM!" > > > > That, David, is an excellent suggestion. > > Of course, for us LM types that build flight control systems, > we might prefer: > > "Lockheed Martin, we make things that make _other_ things go BOOM!" > > since, when _our_ systems go BOOM, this is considered a Bad Thing :) > > -- > LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality" Hey, whattaya expect from an ex A-12 avionics guy? Byron Kauffman LMTAS - "We Do Falcons Right" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-23 0:00 ` Bob Munck 1996-07-24 0:00 ` David Kristola @ 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 1996-07-29 0:00 ` David Weller 2 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Keith Thompson @ 1996-07-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In <31F54DE2.6EBF@acm.org> Bob Munck <munck@acm.org> writes: > >From: The Quelisher <kendal@freenet.scri.fsu.edu> > >With all this discussion about programming different things ins Ada, I > >got to thinking......Just what are the limitations of the language? > > > > Ada is unable to exceed the speed of light. Why must people continue to spread the myth that Ada is inherently slower than C? 8-)} -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@thomsoft.com <*> TeleSoft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Alsys^H^H^H^H^H Thomson Software Products 10251 Vista Sorrento Parkway, Suite 300, San Diego, CA, USA, 92121-2718 "As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from government intrusion." -- ACLU v. Reno ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-23 0:00 ` Bob Munck 1996-07-24 0:00 ` David Kristola 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Keith Thompson @ 1996-07-29 0:00 ` David Weller 2 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: David Weller @ 1996-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <31F54DE2.6EBF@acm.org>, Bob Munck <munck@acm.org> wrote: >Ada is unable to exceed the speed of light. Rumor has it that IBM is working on a practical solution to this by redefining 'c' :-) (A dual pun if there ever was :-) -- Visit the Ada 95 Booch Components Homepage: www.ocsystems.com/booch This is not your father's Ada -- lglwww.epfl.ch/Ada ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-19 0:00 The Quelisher 1996-07-20 0:00 ` Michael Feldman 1996-07-21 0:00 ` Nasser Abbasi @ 1996-07-22 0:00 ` Klaus Wyss 1996-07-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Theodore E. Dennison 3 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Klaus Wyss @ 1996-07-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) The Quelisher wrote: > > With all this discussion about programming different things ins Ada, I > got to thinking......Just what are the limitations of the language? I > mean, is it versitile enough to program a Windows program then turn right > back around and make a kernel? > > Just letting curiosity get the better of me... > -- There are no limitations, as long as you stay in the in the nice clean ADA world. If you go to the real dirty computer world, with all the C libraries (Windows,X11,DCE, DB access .... ) you get a lot of limitations. For example if your ADA is not based on pthreads you run into problems with DCE. Klaus Wyss UBS Switzerland ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-22 0:00 ` Klaus Wyss @ 1996-07-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1996-07-24 0:00 ` David Emery 0 siblings, 1 reply; 28+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1996-07-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Klaus says "There are no limitations, as long as you stay in the in the nice clean ADA world. If you go to the real dirty computer world, with all the C libraries (Windows,X11,DCE, DB access .... ) you get a lot of limitations. For example if your ADA is not based on pthreads you run into problems with DCE." Well of course if you are going to interface to the outside world, you must make sure that your Ada compiler has the appropriate capabilities. For example, if you want to interface to C, make sure that the systems programming annex is supported. Similarly, it is quite true that if you want to interface to an outside threads package, then this has implications on the runtime. The statement above is not quite correct, since DCE uses DCE threads, which are not compatible with Pthreads (I assume Pthreads means Posix threads), since they are based on Draft 4, rather than the final version (which was draft 10). However, the differences are small. GNAT uses the DCE threads interface on a number of different machines, and even on a machine where it uses pthreads (e.g. SGI Irix), it would be quite easy to build a version based on DCE threads is this were a requirement. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1996-07-24 0:00 ` David Emery 0 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: David Emery @ 1996-07-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) ... >, since > [DCE threads] are based on Draft 4, rather than the final version (which was > draft 10). However, the differences are small. > Not THAT small, particularly for an Ada RTS! dave ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
* Re: Limitations of Ada 1996-07-19 0:00 The Quelisher ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1996-07-22 0:00 ` Klaus Wyss @ 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Theodore E. Dennison 3 siblings, 0 replies; 28+ messages in thread From: Theodore E. Dennison @ 1996-07-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) The Quelisher wrote: > > With all this discussion about programming different things ins Ada, I > got to thinking......Just what are the limitations of the language? I > mean, is it versitile enough to program a Windows program then turn right > back around and make a kernel? My understanding is that BLISS is required to code a VMS device driver. That's the only "Can't" that I ever came across. -- T.E.D. | Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com | | Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net | | URL - http://www.iag.net/~dennison | ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 28+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1996-08-08 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 28+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1996-07-29 0:00 Limitations of Ada Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Kazimir Majorinc 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1996-07-31 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff 1996-07-31 0:00 ` Fraser Wilson 1996-07-31 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1996-08-01 0:00 ` Spasmo 1996-08-08 0:00 ` mpost 1996-08-01 0:00 ` Bob Kitzberger 1996-08-02 0:00 ` Jack W Scheible 1996-08-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1996-08-03 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 1996-08-05 0:00 ` Jack W Scheible -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 1996-07-19 0:00 The Quelisher 1996-07-20 0:00 ` Michael Feldman 1996-07-21 0:00 ` Nasser Abbasi 1996-07-23 0:00 ` Bob Munck 1996-07-24 0:00 ` David Kristola 1996-07-24 0:00 ` Ron Thompson 1996-07-26 0:00 ` Ken Garlington 1996-07-29 0:00 ` Byron B. Kauffman 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 1996-07-29 0:00 ` David Weller 1996-07-22 0:00 ` Klaus Wyss 1996-07-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1996-07-24 0:00 ` David Emery 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Theodore E. Dennison
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox