* The revolution will not be standardized @ 1999-12-09 0:00 Ted Dennison 1999-12-10 0:00 ` Ed Falis 0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 1999-12-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) There's an article on zdnet about Sun dropping their standardization efforts for Java. http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,2405787,00.html I guess the definition of Java is just going to be "whatever Sun says it is". This seems like a good oppertunity to promote Ada as an "Open" alternative, that is in many cases more portable as well. -- T.E.D. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-09 0:00 The revolution will not be standardized Ted Dennison @ 1999-12-10 0:00 ` Ed Falis 1999-12-10 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-12-12 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 0 siblings, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Ed Falis @ 1999-12-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <82p7hu$l1q$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote: > There's an article on zdnet about Sun dropping their standardization > efforts for Java. > > http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,2405787,00.html > This seems like a good oppertunity to promote Ada as an "Open" > alternative, that is in many cases more portable as well. Once we have the 1001+ amazing standard API's and figure out how to get the cool factor. Haven't ever managed to do that last one myself. - Ed Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-10 0:00 ` Ed Falis @ 1999-12-10 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-12-12 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1 sibling, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 1999-12-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <82ppc9$1u6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ed Falis <falis@my-deja.com> wrote: > In article <82p7hu$l1q$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote: > > This seems like a good oppertunity to promote Ada as an "Open" > > alternative, that is in many cases more portable as well. > > Once we have the 1001+ amazing standard API's and figure out how to > get the cool factor. Haven't ever managed to do that last one myself. Perhaps if we had a hard rule that all Ada-related products have to be palindromes... :-) -- T.E.D. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-10 0:00 ` Ed Falis 1999-12-10 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 1999-12-12 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1999-12-12 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-12-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1 sibling, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Geoff Bull @ 1999-12-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ed Falis wrote: > > Once we have the 1001+ amazing standard API's Since Java is now free, in the monetary sense, we have 1001+ amazing standard APIs simply by calling Java's APIs. We just need an easy standard way of doing this. A bit of compiler support (e.g. circular references) would make building bindings easier. >and figure out how to get the > cool factor. Haven't ever managed to do that last one myself. Me neither. Mind you, Java programmers think Ada's package renaming is cool, especially when someone changes the name of a package in a library. (there is a good reason for doing this) Cheers Geoff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-12 0:00 ` Geoff Bull @ 1999-12-12 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-12-13 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1999-12-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1 sibling, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-12-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <385252E8.FF140CD2@acenet.com.au>, Geoff Bull <gbull@acenet.com.au> wrote: > > > Ed Falis wrote: > > > > Once we have the 1001+ amazing standard API's > > Since Java is now free, in the monetary sense, we have 1001+ > amazing standard APIs simply by calling Java's APIs. > We just need an easy standard way of doing this. > A bit of compiler support (e.g. circular references) would make > building bindings easier. This is at least partially in place, GNAT supports a form of with type, precisely for this purpose. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-12 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-12-13 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1999-12-13 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread From: Geoff Bull @ 1999-12-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > This is at least partially in place, GNAT supports a form of > with type, precisely for this purpose. I had seen this in the JGNAT bindings for Rapid, but there is no mention of this in the documentation, not even obscurely placed under the heading "With Type Clause" :-) I had thus assumed it was JGNAT only. In retrospect this was a silly assumption, why would you make the front end different? Through the wonders of open source, I find: ---------------------- -- With_Type clause -- ---------------------- -- This is a GNAT extension, used to implement mutually recursive -- types declared in different packages. -- WITH_TYPE_CLAUSE ::= -- with type type_NAME is access | with type type_NAME is tagged I will try this. Thanks Geoff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-13 0:00 ` Geoff Bull @ 1999-12-13 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread From: Larry Kilgallen @ 1999-12-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3854EBD4.6B100D52@acenet.com.au>, Geoff Bull <gbull@acenet.com.au> writes: > > > Robert Dewar wrote: > >> This is at least partially in place, GNAT supports a form of >> with type, precisely for this purpose. > > I had seen this in the JGNAT bindings for Rapid, but there is > no mention of this in the documentation, not even obscurely > placed under the heading "With Type Clause" :-) > > I had thus assumed it was JGNAT only. In retrospect this was a > silly assumption, why would you make the front end different? > > Through the wonders of open source, I find: > > ---------------------- > -- With_Type clause -- > ---------------------- > > -- This is a GNAT extension, used to implement mutually recursive > -- types declared in different packages. > > -- WITH_TYPE_CLAUSE ::= > -- with type type_NAME is access | with type type_NAME is tagged If your comment about the "wonders of open source" means finding features that are not documented, I "wonder" about the wisdom of it. Often a feature that is not documented is also not supported (although in this particular case, Robert indicates it is supported). Typically the documentation, however, is the indication of what is supported and what is not. I recall discussions of some GNAT features provided only for building GNAT. Open source would be useful if you were going to support yourself on a feature, of course. Larry Kilgallen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-13 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen @ 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Geoff Bull @ 1999-12-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Larry Kilgallen wrote: > > Often a feature that is not documented is also not supported I use the public version of GNAT, so *nothing* is supported! > I recall discussions of some GNAT features provided only > for building GNAT. This particular feature is obviously there for JGNAT - I haven't seen JGNAT, but I have seen the JGNAT port of Rapid and it extensively uses the with type feature. > > Open source would be useful if you were going to support yourself on > a feature, of course. I don't pay anyone for support, so other than freebies I get on gnat chat, I'm on my own. Geoff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-12 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1999-12-12 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-12-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-12-13 0:00 ` reason67 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1 sibling, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 1999-12-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <385252E8.FF140CD2@acenet.com.au>, Geoff Bull <gbull@acenet.com.au> wrote: > Since Java is now free, in the monetary sense, we have 1001+ > amazing standard APIs simply by calling Java's APIs. Yes, but is it free in the freedom sense? -- T.E.D. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 1999-12-13 0:00 ` reason67 1999-12-13 0:00 ` Aidan Skinner 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1 sibling, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread From: reason67 @ 1999-12-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <8333q3$9rh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote: > > Since Java is now free, in the monetary sense... > > Yes, but is it free in the freedom sense? Yes it is. You have the freedom to choose to use Java under the restrictions put on it by Sun. You do not have the freedom to force Sun to not put restrictions on it. Since Sun can not force you to use it, Java is free in the freedom sense because no one can initiate force in its use. --- Jeffrey S. Blatt Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-13 0:00 ` reason67 @ 1999-12-13 0:00 ` Aidan Skinner 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread From: Aidan Skinner @ 1999-12-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:06:54 GMT, reason67@my-deja.com <reason67@my-deja.com> wrote: >Yes it is. You have the freedom to choose to use Java under the >restrictions put on it by Sun. You do not have the freedom to force Sun OTOH only Sun says what "Java" is, and they've recently removed it from the standardisation process. One of the major things about Ada that I prefer over Java is that it's standardised, and that that standard is freely available. - Aidan (who would, frankly, be lost without the LRM and refers to it more often than any of his text books) -- http://www.skinner.demon.co.uk/aidan/ http://www.gla.ac.uk/Clubs/WebSoc/~9704075s/ "I could always suspend a few hundred accounts and watch what happens" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-13 0:00 ` Aidan Skinner @ 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Geoff Bull @ 1999-12-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Aidan Skinner wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:06:54 GMT, reason67@my-deja.com > <reason67@my-deja.com> wrote: > > >You have the freedom to choose to use Java under the > >restrictions put on it by Sun. In that sense, just about anything is free! > One of the major things about Ada that I prefer over Java is that it's > standardised, and that that standard is freely available. > - Aidan (who would, frankly, be lost without the LRM and refers to it > more often than any of his text books) Me too. But Java is standardised too. There is a language specification for the core language. The libraries are extensively documented, so that can be considered a standard. And of course, the JVM has a standard. All of these standards are freely available on the net. Does it really matter whether they are Sun standards or ISO standards? I agree it affects who has power over the language, but in either case that power doesn't lie with me! I have lots of reasons for preferring Ada over Java, ISO standardisation is a long way down the list. Cheers Geoff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Geoff Bull @ 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-12-14 0:00 ` reason67 2 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread From: Richard D Riehle @ 1999-12-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <38561D9A.70B61403@acenet.com.au>, Geoff Bull <gbull@acenet.com.au> wrote: >But Java is standardised too. Of course it is. It is standardized just the way MS Visual Basic is standardized. Oh, and notice how nicely English is standardized (-ised) from one country to another. Richard Riehle ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle @ 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Greg Martin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread From: Marin D. Condic @ 1999-12-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Richard D Riehle wrote: > Of course it is. It is standardized just the way > MS Visual Basic is standardized. > Standards are such a wonderful thing that everybody wants to have one of their own, eh? :-) I'd think that for the term to be useful, it needs to imply some sort of agreement between a collection of autonomous and even adversarial people to adhere to some reasonably well defined set of rules. How's that for kicking off another language war? ;-) MDC -- ============================================================= Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - 1.800.555.3393 1015-116 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 http://www.quadruscorp.com/ Visit my web site at: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin." -- Allan Meltzer, Economist ============================================================= ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic @ 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Greg Martin 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 1999-12-15 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 0 siblings, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Greg Martin @ 1999-12-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 10:00:18 -0800, "Marin D. Condic" <mcondic-nospam@quadruscorp.com> wrote: >Richard D Riehle wrote: >> Of course it is. It is standardized just the way >> MS Visual Basic is standardized. >> >Standards are such a wonderful thing that everybody wants to have one of >their own, eh? :-) > >I'd think that for the term to be useful, it needs to imply some sort of >agreement between a collection of autonomous and even adversarial people >to adhere to some reasonably well defined set of rules. > >How's that for kicking off another language war? ;-) > I certainly hope it doesn't Marin because I believe you are quite right. A standard is to be measured against and has to be open and used to be of meaning.. The U.S. still clings (to some degree) to the British Standard of weights and measure while most of the rest of the world has gone metric. End result: more flotsam (or is that jetsam) on Mars. Regards, Greg Martin. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Greg Martin @ 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 1999-12-15 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-12-15 0:00 ` The revolution will not be standardized Greg Martin 1999-12-15 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1 sibling, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Marin D. Condic @ 1999-12-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Greg Martin wrote: > I certainly hope it doesn't Marin because I believe you are quite > right. A standard is to be measured against and has to be open and > used to be of meaning.. The U.S. still clings (to some degree) to the > British Standard of weights and measure while most of the rest of the > world has gone metric. End result: more flotsam (or is that jetsam) on > Mars. The "language war" I refer to is the one that seems to get started up here occasionally concerning defining terminology. Personally, I may prefer not to spend too much time trying to get a consensus going on what constitutes a "Standard" because I think I'll know one when I see one. When I look at the ARM, I see something with a relatively high level of standardization. Micro$oft Visual Basic on the other hand, has a relatively low level of standardization. (I can't count on what it contains from one moment to the next.) As for flotsam on Mars, I thought I heard the latest problem was being blamed on VxWorks. But I don't always have my ear firmly enough to the ground to get the accurate dope on these rumors. (Maybe we could blame the whole mess on the fact that VxWorks wasn't written in Ada? Or would that be kicking someone when they're down? {It is, after all, the safest way} :-) MDC -- ============================================================= Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - 1.800.555.3393 1015-116 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 http://www.quadruscorp.com/ Visit my web site at: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin." -- Allan Meltzer, Economist ============================================================= ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic @ 1999-12-15 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-12-16 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 1999-12-21 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1999-12-15 0:00 ` The revolution will not be standardized Greg Martin 1 sibling, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 1999-12-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3856EA29.7B4C0A95@quadruscorp.com>, "Marin D. Condic" <mcondic-nospam@quadruscorp.com> wrote: > The "language war" I refer to is the one that seems to get started up > here occasionally concerning defining terminology. Personally, I may > prefer not to spend too much time trying to get a consensus going on > what constitutes a "Standard" because I think I'll know one when I see > one. When I look at the ARM, I see something with a relatively high > level of standardization. Micro$oft Visual Basic on the other hand, > has a relatively low level of standardization. (I can't count on what > it contains from one moment to the next.) Right. And the Windows API I'd say is even lower, because you can't count on it even between releases, and if you are a competitor you *can* count on it changing to hose you. What I see is Sun positioning themselves where they *could* also do that if they so choose. To try and drag this back to my original point, I think lack of open standardization has just doomed Java. Perhaps it isn't obvious from external signs right now, but a little knowledge of history will make it quite clear. (If you don't buy my argument, go read "The Last Dinosaur and the Tarpits of Doom", particularly the "Historical Detour: The Open Standards Steamroller" and "Microcomputers: The Valley that Time Forgot" sections, at http://members.tripod.com/adrianomerlotto/docs/lastdino.html ) Anyway, *given* that Java is doomed, wouldn't it be a good idea to be positioning Ada as the alternative? The language itself is nearly as portable, in some cases moreso. The portable API functionality is a bit lacking, but certianly no moreso than any of the other alternatives. -- T.E.D. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-15 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 1999-12-16 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 1999-12-21 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1 sibling, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Marin D. Condic @ 1999-12-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison wrote: > Anyway, *given* that Java is doomed, wouldn't it be a good idea to be > positioning Ada as the alternative? The language itself is nearly as > portable, in some cases moreso. The portable API functionality is a bit > lacking, but certianly no moreso than any of the other alternatives. > In the same sense that Visual Basic is "doomed"? ;-) I think it would be useful to position Ada as a standard, portable alternative to Java. The big problem is, as has been observed in the past, that Ada doesn't come with fifty bazillion predefined, "standard" classes and Ada doesn't come with a full-up, integrated development environment. To some extent, this is changing, but it still remains a hodge-podge collection of stuff that you have to pull together for yourself. What would you suggest as the strategy for positioning Ada as a competitor to Java? MDC -- ============================================================= Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - 1.800.555.3393 1015-116 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 http://www.quadruscorp.com/ Visit my web site at: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin." -- Allan Meltzer, Economist ============================================================= ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-15 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-12-16 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic @ 1999-12-21 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1999-12-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread From: Geoff Bull @ 1999-12-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison wrote: > > Anyway, *given* that Java is doomed, Did you mean to post this to alt.what.have.you.been.smoking ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-21 0:00 ` Geoff Bull @ 1999-12-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-12-21 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-12-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <385F6039.65A1B1B4@acenet.com.au>, Geoff Bull <gbull@acenet.com.au> wrote: > > > Ted Dennison wrote: > > > > Anyway, *given* that Java is doomed, > > Did you mean to post this to alt.what.have.you.been.smoking ? Well the statement in this generality is of course bogus, but it is generally agreed that client java usage is decreasing rapidly, and that this technology will not survive. Java will likely find its place pretty much exclusively in server apps and telephones :-) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-12-21 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 1999-12-22 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread From: Richard D Riehle @ 1999-12-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <83od9d$1i8$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote: >Well the statement in this generality is of course bogus, but >it is generally agreed that client java usage is decreasing >rapidly, and that this technology will not survive. Java will >likely find its place pretty much exclusively in server apps >and telephones :-) Robert, Since you are the one who posted this, I find it credible. However, I wonder if you can cite some sources. It would be quite helpful when dealing with current clients who have been deluded into thinking they can replace some of their Ada efforts with Java. Thanks in advance, Richard Riehle http://www.adaworks.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-21 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle @ 1999-12-22 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1999-12-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 1999-12-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com> writes: > Since you are the one who posted this, I find it credible. However, > I wonder if you can cite some sources. It would be quite helpful > when dealing with current clients who have been deluded into thinking > they can replace some of their Ada efforts with Java. Speaking of which, I've heard many people say that Java is just like Ada, except that it uses C syntax. That is nonsense, in my opinion: Java inherits many error-prone "features" not present in Ada. - Bob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-22 0:00 ` Robert A Duff @ 1999-12-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-12-23 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 1999-12-23 0:00 ` Ehud Lamm 0 siblings, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-12-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <wcc66xruh8n.fsf@world.std.com>, Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote: > Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com> writes: > > Speaking of which, I've heard many people say that Java is just like > Ada, except that it uses C syntax. That is nonsense, in my opinion: > Java inherits many error-prone "features" not present in Ada. Naturaly it goes without saying that it would be VERY useful if yoou could expand on the above statement :-) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1999-12-23 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 2000-01-05 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1999-12-23 0:00 ` Ehud Lamm 1 sibling, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread From: Richard D Riehle @ 1999-12-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <83sb2d$r1i$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article <wcc66xruh8n.fsf@world.std.com>, > Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote: >> Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com> writes: >> >> Speaking of which, I've heard many people say that Java is >just like >> Ada, except that it uses C syntax. That is nonsense, in my >opinion: >> Java inherits many error-prone "features" not present in Ada. > > >Naturaly it goes without saying that it would be VERY useful >if yoou could expand on the above statement :-) I did not originate that assessment of Java. I think it was part of some other posting earlier. It is now so far from the source, nested within some other reply, that I am not sure of its origins. Java is not "just like Ada" with C syntax. According to Tucker, he sees some Ada semantics in Java. Although Java has tightened up some of the problems associated with C syntax and eliminated some of the ambiguities, it is still fundamentally C syntax. Richard Riehle ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-23 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle @ 2000-01-05 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 2000-01-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-01-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 2000-01-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com> writes: > In article <83sb2d$r1i$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote: > > >In article <wcc66xruh8n.fsf@world.std.com>, > > Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote: > >> Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com> writes: > >> > >> Speaking of which, I've heard many people say that Java is > >just like > >> Ada, except that it uses C syntax. That is nonsense, in my > >opinion: > >> Java inherits many error-prone "features" not present in Ada. > > > > > >Naturaly it goes without saying that it would be VERY useful > >if yoou could expand on the above statement :-) > > I did not originate that assessment of Java. I think it was > part of some other posting earlier. It is now so far from the > source, nested within some other reply, that I am not sure of > its origins. I'm the one who wrote the "Speaking of which..." quote above. Robert replied challenging me to expand on that statement. I could write a book on the subject. I didn't answer Robert because I don't have time to be writing books right now. ;-) Anyway, here are some examples of what I had in mind. These are cases of error-prone features in Java that are not present in Ada. Some (not all) of these features are inherited from C. My contention is that Java went to a lot of trouble to eliminate problems in C that would cause *security* problems, but Java didn't try very hard to eliminate plain old *bugs*. Or "programming mistakes", if you prefer. ;-) The dangling else problem. Alternatives of a switch statement fall through, unless you use break -- but you almost never want to fall through. No full-coverage rules on switch statements -- if there's no default, it does nothing. Everything's a reference, so everything is aliased. (Well, *almost* everything.) Who knows what might hang on to a pointer to so-and-so? In other words, the whole point of local variables is defeated -- local variables can sneakily escape their scope, and you can't tell by reading the code. Elaboration/initialization rules. Wrap-around semantics on integer arithmetic. The integer types are, in general, very machine-oriented. Bit-wise logical operators and shifts have the same status as addition and subtraction. Ada's modular types have the same problem, but at least in Ada, you can usually use a signed integer type for counting things and whatnot, and get more reasonable semantics. (Modular types are not my favorite Ada feature. Shall I post a diatribe on that point? ;-) ) 21 is a different number than 2l. 0011 is different from 11. Java encourages side-effects buried within expressions. Container types lose compile-time type checking. This is because there are no generics. (On the other hand, I must say: it's nice to have lots of container types predefined and standard!) No proper constant declarations (in the Ada sense). No 'in'-mode parameters (because everything's a pointer). No packing. No named-notation calls. I hate reading 10000000 when I could read 10_000_000 instead. No subranges. No new integer types. No enumeration types. ================================================================ On the other hand, there are some counter-examples to my point above. For example, Java makes a distinction between boolean and integers. This is not necessary for security, but it does help prevent bugs, make programs more readable, and all that good stuff. Java also has some features that are *less* error-prone than Ada: Garbage collection. Treatment of uninitialized variables. Declaring what exceptions are propagated. (Although the design is imperfect -- it leads to "crying wolf" too often, IMHO.) No dead code allowed. Fewer implementation-dependent cases. Implementation dependence causes trouble because it's easy to write code that accidentally depends on some implementation-dependent thing, but happens to work using the current compiler on the current machine. Then the bug is found later, after the original programmer has forgotten or gone. ================================================================ I guess the one thing I admire most about Java is its strict insistence on portability. I think that's a Good Thing. On the other hand, in practise, what matters is what implementations do, which is not something the language designer can control. - Bob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 2000-01-05 0:00 ` Robert A Duff @ 2000-01-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-01-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-01-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <wcc7lho9n4g.fsf@world.std.com>, Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote: ================================================================ > > I guess the one thing I admire most about Java is its strict insistence > on portability. I think that's a Good Thing. On the other hand, in > practise, what matters is what implementations do, which is not > something the language designer can control. -------------------------- Well sure you can get complete portability if you sacrifice efficiency. For instance, in the case of floating-point, the Java rules have drastic effects on efficiency of floating-point code on the x86, and *that's* an IEEE machine, you don't even want to think about Java on a non-IEEE machine. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 2000-01-05 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 2000-01-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 2000-01-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-01-06 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 2000-01-06 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1 sibling, 2 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-01-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <wcc7lho9n4g.fsf@world.std.com>, Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote: ================================================================ > > I guess the one thing I admire most about Java is its strict > insistence on portability. I think that's a Good Thing. On > the other hand, in practise, what matters is what > implementations do, which is not > something the language designer can control. It is well known that complete portability can be achieved with high level languages, the kind that people usually regard as interpretive languages, e.g. SNOBOL-4. [side note, the work on SPITBOL shows that it is possible in fact to compile such languages successfully]. My feeling about Java is that it falls between two desirable points, and thus is a bit of a failure in this regard. If you want to take the hit for 100% portability, then do it properly, and produce a proper high level language (something with the flavors of SNOBOL4, SETL, APL, PROLOG, ABC, Python). Don't end up with a low level machine oriented language which still has 32-bit wrap around integers :-) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 2000-01-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 2000-01-06 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 2000-01-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-01-06 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1 sibling, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 2000-01-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes: > If you want to take the hit for 100% portability, then do it > properly, and produce a proper high level language (something > with the flavors of SNOBOL4, SETL, APL, PROLOG, ABC, Python). Some of the above languages you mention are very special purpose, so they don't count, in my mind, when discussing the design of general purpose languages. I don't think SNOBOL should be a "language"; it should be a set of library routines inside a general-purpose language. In fact that's exactly what you've done with GNAT. And I'd rather use those GNAT libraries than use the real SNOBOL4. Important things like reasonable control structures are missing from SNOBOL4. Similarly, PROLOG is often embedded in Lisp, is it not? - Bob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 2000-01-06 0:00 ` Robert A Duff @ 2000-01-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-01-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <wcc7lhmizbc.fsf@world.std.com>, Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote: >Some of the above languages you mention are very special purpose, so > they don't count, in my mind, when discussing the design of general > purpose languages. I don't think SNOBOL should be a "language"; You just don't know SNOBOL4 well, or you would not make this statement. Of *course* SNOBOL4 is a general purpose language. Yes, people who only have a surface acquaintance with the language think of it as being specialized to string processing and that pattern matching is the only interesting feature, but this is bogus. Indeed Robert Dewar's important rule for writing SNOBOL-4, well known in that community is "Don't use pattern matching". What this rule means is that unlike the case in SNOBOL-3, it is wrong to write complex algorithms as pattern matches in SNOBOL-4. The most interesting features of SNOBOL-4 to me are the generalized mappings (the TABLE function), a VERY important feature in programming languages as is known well from the SETL family of languages (SETL/ABC/Python), and the DATA facility for creating programmer defined data types. The latter are particularly interesting, they are record types, where member names are functions that can be applied to any record type sharing the same member name. This can be used to construct quite interesting structures, including for example the possibility of multiple dispatching. Finally, the most important feature of SNOBOL4 is its highly dynamic nature. Someone once said that the design of SNOBOL4 is "never do anything at compile time if it can be left till runtime". The dynamic definition of functions, and the EVAL/CODE functions, familiar from the LISP family of languages, are very powerful additions to expressive power. The SPITBOL packages in GNAT are handy for providing a very limited subset of the SNOBOL4 capability, namely string pattern matching, but please please do not confuse this with providing anything approaching the expressive power of SNOBOL4. That's simply not possible in a low level language like Ada :-) I would guess that Bob's other comments about my list of languages being specialized is also based on inadequate familiarity with these languages. For example, people who don't know APL often dismiss it on the grounds that it is just a specialized gizmo for dealing with arrays, but in fact APL also is a powerful general purpose very high level language with extremely interesting ideas on data aggregation. APL demonstrates that you can replace a lot of traditional algorithm messing with complex data structures by powerful manipulations on much more regular data structures. It's a pity how unfamiliar people are with the general notion and feel of very high level languages (calling them simply high level languages is admittedly deliberately provocative :-) And it is surprising how much programming is done in low level languages. Java is a particular disappointment. If we are at the stage where we can afford the kinds of fundamental inefficiencies that the Java approach involves (and that people have run into with Java), then we could have had a far higher level language that would have allowed Java applications to be written far more compactly and reliably. As it is Java suffers from most of the disadvantages of both worlds -- the need to write things down at a low level, worrying about data structures, and the inefficiencies of generalized "interpretive" execution. The "intepretive" is in quotes here, because of course Java can be compiled, but then any interpretive language can be compiled (SPITBOL/360 demonstrated that a long time ago, and the technology of compiled APL is well established at this stage). I believe that if Java had been designed from the start with its eventual deployment in mind, it might have turned out very differently. Of course the emphasis on reference rather than value semantics is a matter of taste. For me, going more in the direction of reference semantics is a huge mistake. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 2000-01-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-01-06 0:00 ` Robert A Duff @ 2000-01-06 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1 sibling, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 2000-01-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes: > It is well known that complete portability can be achieved > with high level languages, the kind that people usually regard > as interpretive languages, e.g. SNOBOL-4. [side note, the work > on SPITBOL shows that it is possible in fact to compile such > languages successfully]. "Complete portability" is impossible. Different machines run at different speeds, and have different amounts of memory. Clearly the speed at which a program runs, and whether or not it runs out of memory, are user-visible properties. But it is clearly impossible to define them portably in a language standard, so of course no standard tries. Of course, I know what you mean -- you mean *assuming* we don't run out of resources, we can achieve complete portability, at the expense of efficiency. Fine. Also, I think it is impossible, or at least infeasible, to achieve portability with respect to interactions with the outside world that depend on timing. Any program that has a delay statement in it is potentially non-portable, as is any program that uses true parallelism. Any program that depends on the timing of mouse clicks or keystrokes is potentially non-portable. SNOBOL-4 isn't a multi-threaded language, if I remember correctly. Most of the computer science theory I learned in school imagined a computer program as taking some input, grinding upon it, and then printing out the answer -- a Turing machine or equivalent. But real programs nowadays interact with the outside world over a period of time, which is a different thing. > My feeling about Java is that it falls between two desirable > points, and thus is a bit of a failure in this regard. Yeah. For example, it's strange to force almost everything into the heap, and require garbage collection, and require growable arrays, but then not have growable (arbitrary-range) integers. But I actually don't think a language design *has* to choose a point on that spectrum. It can support many points on that spectrum. Kind of like Ada has chapter-13-ish kinds of stuff, but also allows you to program at a much higher level when you so desire. > If you want to take the hit for 100% portability, then do it > properly, and produce a proper high level language (something > with the flavors of SNOBOL4, SETL, APL, PROLOG, ABC, Python). Well, I don't really want 100% portability, even in the sense of ignoring timing and memory use and so forth. The trade-off between efficiency and portability is an engineering decision. What I would like is to allow the programmer (rather than the language designer) to make that decision, and to make it differently in different parts of the same program. In other words, I don't like (say) Ada because it forces me to use efficient, machine-oriented, error-prone, non-portable integers all the time, but I don't like (say) Smalltalk either, because it forces me to use inefficient, portable, safe integers all the time. What I want is a language that gives me the choice. And I don't want to bias that choice against portability. Of course you *can* do arbitrary-range arithmetic in Ada -- it's just a huge pain for various reasons. > Don't end up with a low level machine oriented language which > still has 32-bit wrap around integers :-) I agree completely about integers. But I was thinking of things like order-of-evaluation of actual parameters. In that case, Ada allows bugs to lurk where Java eliminates them. And I'm not convinced it *needs* to cause inefficiency. - Bob P.S. What would happen if this thread were cross-posted to comp.lang.java, or comp.java.advocacy or whatever it's called? ;-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-12-23 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle @ 1999-12-23 0:00 ` Ehud Lamm 1999-12-23 0:00 ` gnat 3.12 Michael Ben-Gershon 1 sibling, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread From: Ehud Lamm @ 1999-12-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) |In article <wcc66xruh8n.fsf@world.std.com>, |Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote: |> Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com> writes: |> |> Speaking of which, I've heard many people say that Java is |just like |> Ada, except that it uses C syntax. Yeah. The generics Java has are of course a direct translation from Ada. Now if only they were documented somewhere... Ehud Lamm mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il http://purl.oclc.org/NET/ehudlamm <== My home on the web Check it out and subscribe to the E-List- for interesting essays and more! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* gnat 3.12 1999-12-23 0:00 ` Ehud Lamm @ 1999-12-23 0:00 ` Michael Ben-Gershon 1999-12-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread From: Michael Ben-Gershon @ 1999-12-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Has anyone found a way to build gnat 3.12 on top of gcc-2.95.2? The distribution has instructions for gnat-3.10, but not for the more recent 3.12. Many thanks, Michael Ben-Gershon mybg@netvision.net.il ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: gnat 3.12 1999-12-23 0:00 ` gnat 3.12 Michael Ben-Gershon @ 1999-12-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-12-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3862044A.2A1E06AA@netvision.net.il>, Michael Ben-Gershon <mybg@netvision.net.il> wrote: > Has anyone found a way to build gnat 3.12 on top of gcc-2.95.2? > The distribution has instructions for gnat-3.10, but not for > the more recent 3.12. There is no point in messing around with this. Even if you managed to get it working, there are some significant bugs in gcc-2.95.2 so you would get an unreliable result. GNAT version 3.12 is specifically designed to be built with GCC 2.8.1. Right now, there is concentrated work going on to create a unified gcc build that will contain all the necessary fixes and patches from GCC 2.8.1, as well as the new features and fixes from the EGCS development. A future version of GNAT will be built using this merged version. Meanwhile, the advice is to use GNAT as distributed and built with GCC 2.8.1. If you want to use g++ built with gcc-2.95.2, that's fine, and if you want to link gnat and g++ stuff together that also works fine, see GNAT documentation for details. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 1999-12-15 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 1999-12-15 0:00 ` Greg Martin 1 sibling, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Greg Martin @ 1999-12-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:08:57 -0800, "Marin D. Condic" <mcondic-nospam@quadruscorp.com> wrote: > >As for flotsam on Mars, I thought I heard the latest problem was being >blamed on VxWorks. But I don't always have my ear firmly enough to the >ground to get the accurate dope on these rumors. (Maybe we could blame >the whole mess on the fact that VxWorks wasn't written in Ada? Or would >that be kicking someone when they're down? {It is, after all, the safest >way} :-) I was refering to the previous attempt, blamed on a contractor who didn't realise that the measurements given were in Metric. I hadn't heard who was catching the blame for the most recent one. Personally I believe all NASA's problems would be solved if they would only hire middle aged programmers as astronauts (but I guess I should take that to alt.pipedreams :-) Regards, Greg Martin. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Greg Martin 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic @ 1999-12-15 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1 sibling, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 1999-12-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3856d861.30417176@news.netidea.com>, gregm@netidea.com (Greg Martin) wrote: > world has gone metric. End result: more flotsam (or is that jetsam) on > Mars. Perhaps we need a new word for space debris, like "nassam". :-) -- T.E.D. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle @ 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-12-15 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1999-12-14 0:00 ` reason67 2 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 1999-12-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <38561D9A.70B61403@acenet.com.au>, Geoff Bull <gbull@acenet.com.au> wrote: > But Java is standardised too. I disagree. > There is a language specification for the core language. But if Sun decides tomorrow that Java now looks just like Python, who's to stop them? If someone makes a completely non-conformant JVM, and pays Sun a ton of money, what's to stop Sun from declaring it a valid JVM? If someone makes a perfectly conformant Java but Sun doesn't like them for some other reason, what's to stop Sun from refusing to declare it a valid Java implementation? > The libraries are extensively documented, so that can be considered > a standard. And of course, the JVM has a standard. Being documented does not make something a standard. By that logic, every commercial API in the world would be a "standard". > Does it really matter whether they are Sun standards or ISO standards? That's the rub. I think it matters a great deal whether a "standard" is at the mercy of any one vendor. In fact, I think that situation is a good answer to the question: "When is a standard *not* a standard?". Look at it this way. Unlike ISO, Sun is not in the business of developing and shepherding standards. Sun is in the business of selling hardware and some software. If they have an oppertunity to muck with the standard in a way that will help their sales or hurt a competitor's, they *will* do it. If I happen to be that competitor, or just an innocent bystander who also happens to get hurt, that's just too bad for me. If you think this isn't likely to happen, just take a look at what Microsoft has historicly done with their de-facto standards. Now, how is someone going to accomplish the same feat with the Ada standard? I notice sales materials touting conformance to open standards in products all the time. I would think the principle should a apply equally well to languages as it does to communications protocols. -- T.E.D. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 1999-12-15 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1999-12-15 0:00 ` Preben Randhol 0 siblings, 1 reply; 40+ messages in thread From: Geoff Bull @ 1999-12-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison wrote: > > In article <38561D9A.70B61403@acenet.com.au>, > > There is a language specification for the core language. > > But if Sun decides tomorrow that Java now looks just like Python, who's > to stop them? A few million unhappy customers. > If someone makes a completely non-conformant JVM, and pays Sun a ton of > money, what's to stop Sun from declaring it a valid JVM? That would seem like a pretty dumb thing to do in the long term, particularly considering the Sun v Microsoft cases. > If someone makes a perfectly conformant Java but Sun doesn't like them > for some other reason, what's to stop Sun from refusing to declare it a > valid Java implementation? I'm not a lawyer, but I can think of a few legal angles on this one. To start with, in Australia, that would be a breach of our Trade Practices Act. And I am under the impression that US laws are tougher than ours in this regard. > > The libraries are extensively documented, so that can be considered > > a standard. And of course, the JVM has a standard. > > Being documented does not make something a standard. By that logic, > every commercial API in the world would be a "standard". True - but if something has a few million users it is a defacto standard. > > "When is a standard *not* a standard?". When nobody uses it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-15 0:00 ` Geoff Bull @ 1999-12-15 0:00 ` Preben Randhol 0 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Preben Randhol @ 1999-12-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Geoff Bull <gbull@acenet.com.au> writes: | Ted Dennison wrote: | > Being documented does not make something a standard. By that logic, | > every commercial API in the world would be a "standard". | | True - but if something has a few million users it is a defacto | standard. Which is also the problem. A different angle. Many users use Microsoft Words. The file format Word uses change from version to version and is of course kept secret. But people still upgrade and use Word because everybody else does even though it is not in their best interest. So having Sun "own" Java and being the "benevolent" ruler of how Java is supposed to work is not a thing I would like for the future. I would think Sun strategy is not to get people to use _their_ OS, but that everybody should use Java. Then Sun gets a monopoly through that. So having Java as an ISO standard where Sun does not control it is IMHO a better solution for the future. See also: http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/GeoffreyRobinson/GeoffreyRobinson2.html | > "When is a standard *not* a standard?". | | When nobody uses it. I don't see the logic here. -- Preben Randhol -- [randhol@pvv.org] -- [http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/] "Det eneste trygge stedet i verden er inne i en fortelling." -- Athol Fugard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 1999-12-14 0:00 ` reason67 2 siblings, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: reason67 @ 1999-12-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <38561D9A.70B61403@acenet.com.au>, Geoff Bull <gbull@acenet.com.au> wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:06:54 GMT, reason67@my-deja.com > > <reason67@my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > >You have the freedom to choose to use Java under the > > >restrictions put on it by Sun. > > In that sense, just about anything is free! This is a bit off the Ada topic and I would be happy to go into more detail in private email. Freedom is the absense of coercion. So, anytime someone initiates force or a threat of force, you are not free. Free market agencies always leave people free. Coercive monopolies (those licensed by a government) would limit freedom. The reason I responded orginally is that it bothers me when people claim that they are not free when companies have restrictions on what they produce. Some goes as far as the advocacy of forcing people to "free" their code. --- Jeffrey S. Blatt Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
* Re: The revolution will not be standardized 1999-12-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-12-13 0:00 ` reason67 @ 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1 sibling, 0 replies; 40+ messages in thread From: Geoff Bull @ 1999-12-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison wrote: > > > Since Java is now free, in the monetary sense, we have 1001+ > > amazing standard APIs simply by calling Java's APIs. > > Yes, but is it free in the freedom sense? > No. Sun want to keep *their* freedom, which is why they bailed out of the ECMA standardissation process (and ISO before that). Read the licence and see what it means for you. You can get the source too, but of course there are strict conditions on what you can do with it. Cheers Geoff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 40+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2000-01-07 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 40+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1999-12-09 0:00 The revolution will not be standardized Ted Dennison 1999-12-10 0:00 ` Ed Falis 1999-12-10 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-12-12 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1999-12-12 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-12-13 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1999-12-13 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1999-12-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-12-13 0:00 ` reason67 1999-12-13 0:00 ` Aidan Skinner 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Greg Martin 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 1999-12-15 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-12-16 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 1999-12-21 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1999-12-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-12-21 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 1999-12-22 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1999-12-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-12-23 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 2000-01-05 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 2000-01-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-01-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-01-06 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 2000-01-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-01-06 0:00 ` Robert A Duff 1999-12-23 0:00 ` Ehud Lamm 1999-12-23 0:00 ` gnat 3.12 Michael Ben-Gershon 1999-12-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1999-12-15 0:00 ` The revolution will not be standardized Greg Martin 1999-12-15 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1999-12-15 0:00 ` Geoff Bull 1999-12-15 0:00 ` Preben Randhol 1999-12-14 0:00 ` reason67 1999-12-14 0:00 ` Geoff Bull
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox