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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!macrakis
From: macrakis@harvard.UUCP (Stavros Macrakis)
Newsgroups: net.lang,net.lang.ada
Subject: Integer division semantics; Ada
Message-ID: <728@harvard.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Feb-86 12:38:59 EST
Article-I.D.: harvard.728
Posted: Thu Feb 20 12:38:59 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Feb-86 06:08:06 EST
References: <11610@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <5100003@ccvaxa> <548@ism780c.UUCP> <11923@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Aiken Comp. Lab., Harvard
Keywords: Ada, programming language selection, Ada-bashing
Xref: linus net.lang:1914 net.lang.ada:644
Summary: Gratuitous Ada-bashing deplored
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In a discussion of division standards, Matthew P. Wiener
(weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU) brings up some questions about the role
of Ada:
					<11610@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
> ...many of the largest defense companies/contractors consider Ada to
> be a complete joke and have no intention of making it available
> unless their programmers start screaming and begging for it.

You appear to have a strange model of programming language choice.
Do you have some documentation for your claims?

> This includes [LANL, LLL, NSA, NASA, Lockheed]. ...

Ada is required only for (most) DoD embedded computer systems.  No one
is trying to impose Ada for scientific (LANL, LLL) applications or in
research in general.  NSA -- who knows?  NASA has selected Ada as the
programming language for the Space Station.  Lockheed will be using
Ada in most future embedded systems.

> Considering that all the biggies run UNIX on Cray-2s and are--if
> they are intelligent--moving towards workstations that will talk
> with the Cray-2s quite easily (read UNIX workstations), it looks
> like that a large portion of DoD programming will move towards C,
> not Ada. ...

There is no contradiction between Unix and Ada.  Indeed, Intermetrics
developed and runs their Ada compiler (Byron Ada) under UTS (Amdahl's
Unix for the 370 architecture) -- as well, of course, as under other
hosts and targets (Note: I consult for Intermetrics).  C was used for
some bootstrap RTS modules which would otherwise have been written in
machine language; they are being rewritten in Ada.

> Incidentally, LLL and NSA both have their own private languages.

This is one of the raisons d'etre of Ada.  The Air Force, the Navy,
the Army, etc. ALL had their own languages, many of them based on
Algol 58 (yes, 58, not 68).  If the LLL and NSA languages have some
special attributes which makes them particularly suited for their
users, I would imagine they will continue to be used.  If, on the
other hand, they are simply not-invented-here growths, I would imagine
they would fade away as more and more facilities (packages, tool)
become available for Ada.

> ... Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if they chose the boneheaded
> way of doing integer division for idiotic reasons anyway. ...  [And
> to net.lang.ada readers: sorry for picking on Ada, but I realize
> many of you have no choice in the matter anyway.]

Insults and condescension don't help your argument.

	-s

	Macrakis@Harvard.{Harvard.EDU,ARPA,uucp,csnet}
		@Harvunxh.bitnet