Re: Ada Dot Net ?

["WJT" <bthomas@aisvt.bfg.com>]

"Wes Groleau" <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:3CA48637.C5C4DEF5@despammed.com...
>
> > And look, before all of  you start flaming me with a bunch of crap about
> > portable GUI interfaces, the evils of the Gates Empire, just stop before
you
> > even get started. .....
> >
> > I have earned the right to say that as far as I'm concerned Ada has
always
> > missed the mark, has always fallen short of the other languages when it
> > comes to MS Windows development environments and tools. I would just
like to
>
> This is true.  However, part of the reason is that Ada
> folks generally HAVE been concerned with portability,
> while Microsoft is concerned with preventing it!
>
> Ada on .Net would be a Good Thing, but if it
> would remain truly Ada, it would be a Better Thing.

The Ada95 language definition has enough flexibility to fit on the .Net
platform through the use of  'allowable and documented restrictions',
implementation defined attributes, pragmas and of course there is always
implementation specific packages.

> .Net and C# are basically an attempt to make a
> Microsoft-controlled alternative to Java.
>
> I'd like to see Ada on .Net, but I know that
> Gates & Co. will do everything they can get away
> with to make it incompatible with any other Ada,
> just like they did with Java.

Your paranoid, its flattering to think that Bill would even care enough to
make Ada his own, besides that I believe that MS is starting to understand
the benefits of ISO standardization. They have submitted C# and the Common
Language Infrastructure to the ECMA (which is what I'm told the fast track
to ISO standardization).

> If you consider this a flame, so be it.
>
> --
> Wes Groleau
> http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau