Re: Linux Kernel in Ada. Repost

[Samuel Mize <smize@imagin.net>]

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> In article <7et6j7$1qlr@news1.newsguy.com>,
>   Samuel Mize <smize@imagin.net> wrote:
>> And this brings the discussion around full circle.  There
>> isn't much work being done on extending Linux with Ada,
>> because it requires a thin binding,
> 
> To claim that this is the one and only, or even a
> significant reason is simply not something you can
> prove, or even reasonably argue in my view.

Sorry if I was unclear.  I was summarizing other folks' points
on the way to my own conclusion.

I agree that this is not the ONLY deterrent, or indeed much of
a deterrent to serious commercial development.

I meant to refer to "amateur" work, in the best sense of that
word: something done for the love of it.

It seems reasonable that the lack of a common binding would be
a deterrent to starting such work in Ada.  One must learn how
to write a binding, analyze the OS, and write a partial binding,
before starting on the task one actually wanted to do.  Or, one
can use C and start on the fun stuff today!  Hmm, looks like C
is the language of choice.   ;-)  *

   * smiley added for the irony/sarcasm-impaired

Also, a shared binding will encourage people to share code
snippets and subroutines.  Without it, you may have to include
and maintain several bindings in one program to do so.

My own major point is:

  Linux utilities would be a more inviting arena for amateur
  work if there were a common foundation, starting with an
  agreed-to thin binding, maintained somewhere central.

  It would be especially inviting if this "somewhere" included
  a repository for sharing work, building on prior work, and
  coordinating shared work.

It's not a big focus in my professional life at this moment, but
if someone wants to pursue working in Linux utilities or kernel
extension, I'd recommend publishing a thin binding for shared
work as an early step.


> The Ada history is littered with sequences that go like
> this.
> 
> 1) Ada will wildly succeed if only someone does X
> 2) Someone does X
> 3) Ada does not wildly succeed

Again, if I was unclear, sorry.  I didn't intend to say that Ada
would succeed if only there were a thin binding to Linux/Posix.
(Or, indeed, that Ada would succeed only if there were one.)

I intended to say that a shared binding would encourage work on
Linux/Posix tools, especially at the amateur level.

I think it's fair to say that the absence of such a shared binding
discourages such work to some extent.


> The fact of the matter is that it is entirely possible to
> create useful tools for Linux, and to extend the
> functionality of the kernel for that matter.
> 
> All it takes is
...
> work!

Sure.  It would be an encouraging step if the people with interest
in this area were to SHARE some of the basic work.

Best,
Sam Mize

-- 
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada
Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam