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, MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c2f4cdd9ccfb8ede X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f849b,857262ad7d0ad537 X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: How many different processors do you use? Date: 1999/06/28 Message-ID: <7l6l9k$45u$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 494597368 References: <7j1qng$4fp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37576ded.26569745@news.mpx.com.au> <7j8ac0$eah$1@uranium.btinternet.com> <7jh07e$tek$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7jhp34$6f1$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7jjij7$qci$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7jl9n3$n9j$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk> <19990610.7A689D8.FF4B@mojaveg.ridgecrest.ca.us> <7ju2k6$d2r$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <19990614.79AB570.86B3@mojaveg.ridgecrest.ca.us> <7l0305$55h$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <19990626.7A2D4E8.143E4@mojaveg.ridgecrest.ca.us> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x41.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 129.37.100.16 Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jun 28 02:05:45 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded,comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-06-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <19990626.7A2D4E8.143E4@mojaveg.ridgecrest.ca.us>, mojaveg@ridgecrest.ca.us (Everett M. Greene) wrote: > In the case of Ada, DoD made a > flat statement that their definition was the standard. > Consensus existed by decree. Complete nonsense. Obviously you were not involved in the process, and are making uninformed guesses that do not have even a vague relationship with reality! In fact both Ada 83 and Ada 95 were very much consensus operations, although some would say that Jean Ichbiah and Tucker Taft had the ultimate say in many critical areas. Certainly the DoD did not dictate the definition, and could not have done so (even if it had wanted to, which it most emphatically did NOT want to). And as for the idea that the ISO WG9 committee is somehow subject to DoD decrees that's good for a real laugh. One thing that the DoD *did* emphatically want was that Ada would become both a national and international standard. They realized up front (unlike Sun) that this meant that the final shape of the language would have to be determined by national and international consensus and they welcomed this process. I am always amazed by the amount of nonsense attempts there are to rewrite history by people who were not around and simply don't know what happened! None of this is secret, it was a very open process, much has been written about it, and many of the participants in comp.lang.ada at least *were* around and know perfectly well what really happened :-) Robert Dewar Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.