ObjectAda and Feb 29th

ObjectAda and Feb 29th

[Roger Barnett]

I've hit a problem with the special edition of the ObjectAda product 
from Aonix (version 7.1.105, running under Win 95) which I mention on
the off chance it hasn't already been discussed here.

Simply put, the IDE component will not run when my PC system date is 
set to Feb 29th;  Feb 28th and Mar 1st are ok.

I don't know whether this is specific to ObjectAda, or is a side effect
of a problem with Win 95 (or even a virus), or is a result of some 
configuration funnies on my particular PC; but if anyone else sees the
same behaviour then hopefully this will save them spending a couple of
hours trying various re-installations and worrying about possible disc 
problems !


-- 
Roger Barnett

Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th

[Frank J. Lhota]

"Roger Barnett" <Roger@natron.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:368601769wnr@natron.demon.co.uk...
>
> I've hit a problem with the special edition of the ObjectAda product
> from Aonix (version 7.1.105, running under Win 95) which I mention on
> the off chance it hasn't already been discussed here.

This is a known bug with ObjectAda. I believe Aonix offers a fix for version
7.1.2. See their web page for details.

Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th

[DuckE]

Aonix has a patch for the 7.1 runtime libraries that fixes code that you
generate using OA 7.1, but this doesn't help with the development
environment itself.

The problem appears to be an initialization problem since programs that are
already running continue to run, you just cannot restart them.

SteveD

Frank J. Lhota <lhotaf@lexma.meitech.com> wrote in message
news:LgSu4.40$kE4.892@client...
> "Roger Barnett" <Roger@natron.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:368601769wnr@natron.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > I've hit a problem with the special edition of the ObjectAda product
> > from Aonix (version 7.1.105, running under Win 95) which I mention on
> > the off chance it hasn't already been discussed here.
>
> This is a known bug with ObjectAda. I believe Aonix offers a fix for
version
> 7.1.2. See their web page for details.
>
>

Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th

[Pat Rogers]

I get an invalid page fault when I try it, so it must not be something
specific to your machine.  (Also on Win95, with all the updates
(whatever that means:).)

"Roger Barnett" <Roger@natron.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:368601769wnr@natron.demon.co.uk...
>
> I've hit a problem with the special edition of the ObjectAda product
> from Aonix (version 7.1.105, running under Win 95) which I mention
on
> the off chance it hasn't already been discussed here.
>
> Simply put, the IDE component will not run when my PC system date is
> set to Feb 29th;  Feb 28th and Mar 1st are ok.
>
> I don't know whether this is specific to ObjectAda, or is a side
effect
> of a problem with Win 95 (or even a virus), or is a result of some
> configuration funnies on my particular PC; but if anyone else sees
the
> same behaviour then hopefully this will save them spending a couple
of
> hours trying various re-installations and worrying about possible
disc
> problems !
>
>
> --
> Roger Barnett
>
>
>

Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th

[Ted Dennison]

In article <368601769wnr@natron.demon.co.uk>,
  Roger@natron.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> I've hit a problem with the special edition of the ObjectAda product
> from Aonix (version 7.1.105, running under Win 95) which I mention on
> the off chance it hasn't already been discussed here.

It hasn't, but it came up in the Intel-OA mailing list (
"intel-objectada" <intel-objectada@sf.aonix.com> ) nearly 2 years ago.

> I don't know whether this is specific to ObjectAda, or is a side
effect

It's an OA (pre 7.1.3) problem.

See my post in another topic about this. There is a patch available at
http://www.aonix.com/Support/Ada/Patches/1102-patches.htm#1102V712-U4

--
T.E.D.

http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th

[Ephraim Gadsby]

On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:12:01 +0100, Roger@natron.demon.co.uk (Roger
Barnett) wrote:


>Simply put, the IDE component will not run when my PC system date is 
>set to Feb 29th;  Feb 28th and Mar 1st are ok.
>

You are unlikely to be using the same software in eight years, so
pencil-in 29 Feb 2004 for a day-off and you problem is solved.

Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th

[Ted Dennison]

In article <f5cobssumlck3tr1b5hve88a8tlgmu0dfa@4ax.com>,
  Ephraim Gadsby <Ephraim.Gadsby@The.Drones> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 14:12:01 +0100, Roger@natron.demon.co.uk (Roger
> Barnett) wrote:
>
> >Simply put, the IDE component will not run when my PC system date is
> >set to Feb 29th;  Feb 28th and Mar 1st are ok.
> >
>
> You are unlikely to be using the same software in eight years, so
> pencil-in 29 Feb 2004 for a day-off and you problem is solved.

Actually, I believe it was an issue with the special leap day that only
happens on this day every 400 years. I think its safe to say that
everyone here will be taking a day off on 29 Feb 2400. :-)


--
T.E.D.

http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th

[Nick Roberts]

Not so safe. It's just possible that some of the younger readers will be
able to benefit - before it's too late - from techniques already being
developed to completely stop the aging process. (It's too late for most of
us though :-( ;-)

No-one knows the psychological (or neurological) consequences of such
techniques yet - extended life may render the victims as mad as a
double-glazing salesman - and the moral and sociological consequences have
not been addressed (other than by Mssrs Azimov, Dick, et al) nor, taking
human nature into account, are they likely to be until it is too late
(consider how timely the preparations weren't for the 'Y2K bug' if you don't
believe me).

Of course, it would be interesting to live to the year 2400, just to see if
the C++ standard has stabilized by then.

:-)

--
Nick Roberts
http://www.adapower.com/lab/adaos

"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:89j9vq$lvp$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> ...
> I think its safe to say that everyone here will be taking a day off on 29
Feb 2400. :-)

Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th

[Hyman Rosen]

"Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> writes:
> Of course, it would be interesting to live to the year 2400, just to see if
> the C++ standard has stabilized by then.

The C++ Standard is already stabilized. It's ISO/IEC 14882.
It was approved by ANSI on 7/27/98.

Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th

[Jon S Anthony]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> "Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> writes:
> > Of course, it would be interesting to live to the year 2400, just to see if
> > the C++ standard has stabilized by then.
> 
> The C++ Standard is already stabilized. It's ISO/IEC 14882.
> It was approved by ANSI on 7/27/98.

Maybe he was really refering to the various "implementations".  Then
again, that date is probably overly optimistic for this interpretation.

/Jon

-- 
Jon Anthony
Synquiry Technologies, Ltd. Belmont, MA 02478, 617.484.3383
"Nightmares - Ha!  The way my life's been going lately,
 Who'd notice?"  -- Londo Mollari

Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th

[Robert Dewar]

In article <t7ln3un337.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>,
  Hyman Rosen <hymie@prolifics.com> wrote:
> "Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> writes:
> > Of course, it would be interesting to live to the year 2400,
just to see if
> > the C++ standard has stabilized by then.
>
> The C++ Standard is already stabilized. It's ISO/IEC 14882.
> It was approved by ANSI on 7/27/98.

Well clearly Nick knows that the ANSI C++ standard has been
issued, otherwise he would not be wondering whether it was
stablized. Perhaps (not at all unreasonably) he is wondering
whether this standard is stable. Since almost no one exactly
implements all of it yet, the question seems reasonable :-)



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th

[Hyman Rosen]

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:
> Well clearly Nick knows that the ANSI C++ standard has been
> issued, otherwise he would not be wondering whether it was
> stablized. Perhaps (not at all unreasonably) he is wondering
> whether this standard is stable. Since almost no one exactly
> implements all of it yet, the question seems reasonable :-)

Are many ANSI/ISO standards unstable? Anyway, since you frequently
point out that GNAT is the only Ada compiler which implements all
of the Annexes of the Ada standard, I could equally well conclude
that the Ada standard has not stabilized either.

Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th

[Brian Rogoff]

On 8 Mar 2000, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:
> > Well clearly Nick knows that the ANSI C++ standard has been
> > issued, otherwise he would not be wondering whether it was
> > stablized. Perhaps (not at all unreasonably) he is wondering
> > whether this standard is stable. Since almost no one exactly
> > implements all of it yet, the question seems reasonable :-)
> 
> Are many ANSI/ISO standards unstable? Anyway, since you frequently
> point out that GNAT is the only Ada compiler which implements all
> of the Annexes of the Ada standard, I could equally well conclude
> that the Ada standard has not stabilized either.

No, that would be a bad comparison. The Annexes are optional, i.e., not 
part of the core Ada language. Surely you know this. 

A better argument would note that the existence of compiler bugs implies 
that few compilers implement any standard, but this sort of nitpicking, 
while logically correct, is unhelpful. 

Due to the way C++ evolved, implementations have varied quite a bit
amongst themselves, and the divergence from the ISO standard is still 
quite large compared to the divergence of typical Ada compilers from the
standard. Whatever else you may think of Ada vs C++, I don't think you 
can make a reasonable case that C++ is comparable to Ada in terms of 
standard conformance.

-- Brian

Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th

[Robert Dewar]

In article
<Pine.BSF.4.21.0003081348430.8492-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>,
  Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:

> A better argument would note that the existence of compiler
> bugs implies that few compilers implement any standard, but
> this sort of nitpicking,  while logically correct, is
> unhelpful.

We are talking about stability of the standard here. The fact
that compilers have bugs does not necessarily speak to this.
In some obscure cases, we do tune up the standard to deal with
minor flaws (this is what the ongoing work of the AI's is
about), but these are almost always issues of minimal
importance.

In any case, there is a big difference between compilers having
bugs in obscure features, and a C++ compiler that does not
implement exceptions (a required feature of C++) in a manner
compatible with the standard, not because of any bug, but
because quite deliberately, exceptions have not been
implemented, or have been implemented in a manner different
from that specified in the standard.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th

[Robert Dewar]

In article <t7aek9m9kb.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>,
  Hyman Rosen <hymie@prolifics.com> wrote:
reasonable :-)
>
> Are many ANSI/ISO standards unstable? Anyway, since you
> frequently point out that GNAT is the only Ada compiler which
> implements all of the Annexes of the Ada standard, I could
> equally well conclude that the Ada standard has not stabilized
> either.

There are two ways in which the rather ill defined term
"unstable" might be used wrt a standard:

1. Sections of the standard are not widely implemented, and
thus have not really been tested well, and are subject to
change in the future as a result.

2. Sections of the standard were simply not in very good shape
at the time the standard was approved, and are known to be
defective.

The numerics in C++ is in my view (and the view is shared by
others) in category 2.

I really know of nothing in the Ada 95 RM that is in category
2 at all.

As for category 1, it is true that some of the annexes are
implemented only by GNAT, but

(a) this means they are implemented pretty widely, GNAT is
available fully supported on 25 different configurations, and
there are several more volunteer ports around, so this to me
means that these sections are widely implemented. The fact
that there are other vendors who provide subset implementations
that do not include these annexes does not really contradict
this.

(b) in any case, I don't think an argument can be made that
this supposed lack of implementation will result in future
instability (i.e. incompatible changes), since in fact the
wide implementation on GNAT has given considerable opportunity
to experiment with and use these annexes.

(c) The annexes are in any case an ancillary non-required part
of the language, and thus even if there are instabilities there,
the fact that the central core of the language is stable is
significant (and not comparable with the C++ situation).

Often a contrast is made between languages where

a) the standard is developed in advance, and then compilers
appear

b) compilers are developed in parallel or before the standard,
so the standard reflects existing implementation experience.

Interestingly people often think of Ada being in the first
category, and C++ being in the second, but it is *EXACTLY*
the opposite way round.

In the case of both Ada 83 and (even more so) Ada 95,
Ada compilers were being
developed at the same time as the standard, and fully compliant
compilers appeared very shortly after the standard was
available. This implementation experience was very definitely
fed into the developing standard.

In the case of C++, the standard was developed before compilers
implemented many important features (such as exceptions, the
STL, namespace's etc). I think it is still the case that many
(most? all?) C++ compilers fail to implement the entire ISO
standard.




Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th

[Richard D Riehle]

In article <t7ln3un337.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>,
	Hyman Rosen <hymie@prolifics.com> wrote:

>"Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> writes:
>> Of course, it would be interesting to live to the year 2400, just to see if
>> the C++ standard has stabilized by then.
>
>The C++ Standard is already stabilized. It's ISO/IEC 14882.
>It was approved by ANSI on 7/27/98.

C++, the Standard, is relatively stable.  Still has problems with numerics
though since the numerics guy left the project before that part got really stable.

The C++ compilers are not stable, not consistent, and not conformant with the
standard.  Of course, one can also find Ada compilers that fit that description.

We have to differentiate between the compiler publisher's implementation and the
description of the standard.  When making this distinction, Ada, the language, is 
clearly better defined.  C++ is better when it comes to finding tools and variety
of compilers from which to select.  C++, in its earliest forms, when Dr. Stroustup
still had control over its destiny, was showing signs of becoming a relatively good 
language.  What it has become, with the new standard, is messier than it could
have been.  Too bad.  Some who have looked at  Ada 95 feel the same  way about 
what Ada has become.  I guess we can never satisfy everyone.  That seems to be part
of the motivation for the mad rush to Java:  the most recent entry into the "silver
bullet" contest.  Funny how Dr. Brooks' challenge remains unfulfilled.

Richard Riehle