From: "news.oxy.com" <Vladimir_Olensky@oxy.com>
Subject: Re: Garbage collection - was Re: Building a compiler (was: Fixed point multiplication ambiguity)
Date: 1999/02/18
Date: 1999-02-18T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7ah65p$4ag$1@remarQ.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 79ckt6$rp3$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com
robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<79ckt6$rp3$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>> robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>>> <79asc3$cq3$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>>A very nice project would be to try to add full garbage
>>>collection to GNAT ....
>>In article <79c2ch$j1c$1@remarQ.com>,
>> "news.oxy.com" <Vladimir_Olensky@oxy.com> wrote:
>> No doubt, a lot of people using GNAT would be very happy
>> as it would save them a lot of time for doing their own
>> programming instead of inventing their own garbage
>> collection methods.
>
>So, Vladimir, put all the effort you put into writing
>posts to CLA into learning how to do this, and get busy.
>That's the *real* way to help Ada :-)
Congratulations Mr. Robert Devar !
Wonderful answer !
It is interesting to know whether your post represents ACT official position
(as an Ada software company) to the current and potential/future needs of
Ada users or this is something else ?
If this is an official position of ACT then it is very sad for Ada community
and this is shame for ACT. Such position won't attract new people and
organizations to Ada . Just the opposite it may only divert them from it.
Just imagine - Person representing Ada company in this forum tells that it
would be nice to implement something that exists in LRM but is not still
implemented (because it is not mandatory). Some other person reply that this
would be great and receives the answer saying something like this: " go off,
do it yourself and do not bother us any more ". Such position just kills
Ada. It works as repellent.
I have doubt that after reading such things anyone new to Ada could
consider it as a valuable choice for doing something serious. Not only
quality of the language itself has an impact on such decisions but more the
attitude of the software companies that selling Ada compilers, tools and
services.
Expected and well understood answer would be: " We are glad to make Ada
users more happy and we will do whatever we can to make this happen. We have
such and such plans for future and we will do our best to put then into
existence as soon as possible. Please tell us more about your needs and you
will see them implemented in our compiler/tools "
A lot of bright people outside Ada club have rather negative opinion of Ada
and do not wont to spend their time and efforts in doing anything in Ada.
Small example: I recently asked professor Douglas C. Schmidt about his ACE
(Adaptive Communication Environment
http://siesta.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE.html ):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
||> Are there (or were) any intentions to write it in Ada 95?
||
|| No.
||
||> Are there any reasons why this can not be done?
||
|| No, other than no one seems very interested in Ada 95 anymore!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
This is opinion of the professor who is Director of the Center
for Distributed Object Computing in the Department of Computer Science in
Washington University in Saint Louis.
He is very bright person and he has a lot of sponsors from military and
aerospace industry that could be sponsors of ACT as well (provided that ACT
would do .
Surprisingly http://www.adaresource.org/ has a lot of references to Douglas
C. Schmidt works and to his ACE and TAO (real-time Corba implementation
based on ACE).
One of the answers to the question why no one seems to be very interested in
Ada anymore lies in Mr. Devar phrase: "go off and do it yourself and do not
bother us anymore".
Here I would also remind Mr. Devar reply to my remark concerning GLADE
distribution with GNAT 3.11 for Windows NT/95/98. It tells about the
same:-"go off and do it yourself and do not bother us anymore".
As far as garbage collection concerned Mr. Devar probably did not read my
other message posted yearlier than mentioned at the top that I've already
did it for myself (as a small experiment).
Regards,
Vladimir Olensky
(vladimir_olensky@yahoo.com)
(Vladimir_Olensky@oxy.com)
Telecommunications specialist,
Occidental C.I.S. Service, Inc. ( www.oxy.com )
Moscow,
Russia.
P.S. Sorry for being late with the answer. I was out of the loop for some
time busy with the other things.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-02-18 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-01-14 0:00 Fixed point multiplication ambiguity Marc A. Criley
1999-01-14 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1999-01-14 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1999-01-15 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-28 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1999-01-28 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-28 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1999-01-28 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-29 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1999-01-29 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1999-01-29 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1999-01-29 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1999-02-01 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1999-02-02 0:00 ` Building a compiler (was: Fixed point multiplication ambiguity) Nick Roberts
1999-02-03 0:00 ` dennison
1999-02-03 0:00 ` Chris Morgan
1999-02-04 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-04 0:00 ` Garbage collection - was " news.oxy.com
1999-02-04 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-05 0:00 ` Tom Moran
1999-02-05 0:00 ` David Botton
1999-02-18 0:00 ` news.oxy.com [this message]
1999-02-18 0:00 ` dewar
1999-02-18 0:00 ` David Botton
1999-02-18 0:00 ` AdaHag
1999-02-18 0:00 ` Garbage collection - was Re: Building a compiler Samuel Mize
1999-02-19 0:00 ` Samuel Mize
1999-02-19 0:00 ` Garbage collection - was Re: Building a compiler (was: Fixed point multiplication ambiguity) Steven Hovater
1999-02-20 0:00 ` A Modest Defense of ACT (though they are big boys and can take care of themselves) Steve Quinlan
1999-02-21 0:00 ` dewar
1999-02-22 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-02-21 0:00 ` bill
1999-02-22 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1999-02-22 0:00 ` dennison
1999-02-22 0:00 ` dennison
1999-02-24 0:00 ` Steve Quinlan
1999-02-25 0:00 ` dewar
1999-02-25 0:00 ` Steve Quinlan
1999-02-25 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-25 0:00 ` dennison
1999-02-26 0:00 ` Steve Quinlan
1999-02-26 0:00 ` dennison
1999-02-27 0:00 ` Simon Wright
1999-02-27 0:00 ` Dave Taylor
1999-02-28 0:00 ` dewar
1999-02-05 0:00 ` GC+HC for GNAT/GCC (was: Building a compiler) Nick Roberts
[not found] ` <m33e4jvs1n.fsf@muc.de>
1999-02-06 0:00 ` GC+FSD for GNAT/GCC Nick Roberts
1999-02-07 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-05 0:00 ` Building a compiler Nick Roberts
1999-02-05 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1999-02-06 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1999-01-30 0:00 ` Fixed point multiplication ambiguity robert_dewar
1999-02-02 0:00 ` Building a compiler (was: Fixed point multiplication ambiguity) Nick Roberts
1999-02-03 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1999-02-03 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-01-14 0:00 ` Fixed point multiplication ambiguity Tom Moran
1999-01-14 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-01-14 0:00 ` bob
1999-01-14 0:00 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox