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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,6413b417b806eb28 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Samuel Mize Subject: Re: Linux Kernel in Ada. Repost Date: 1999/04/16 Message-ID: <7f7m07$nuq@news1.newsguy.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 467184419 References: <7eg43i$d3b$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <370CC730.4C6112DB@utech.net> <370D7007.2D3AD58B@rocketmail.com> <7el9so$geb@drn.newsguy.com> <7elrg5$egk2@ftp.kvaerner.com> <7emjk8$rp3@drn.newsguy.com> <7ep6uj$o97$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7ep9p3$9fm@drn.newsguy.com> <7eqipd$p0n$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7et6j7$1qlr@news1.newsguy.com> <7euild$4io$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: ImagiNet Communications, Ltd. User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-981002 ("Phobia") (UNIX) (AIX/3-2) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-04-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > In article <7et6j7$1qlr@news1.newsguy.com>, > Samuel Mize 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