* ObjectAda and Feb 29th @ 2000-02-29 0:00 Roger Barnett 2000-02-29 0:00 ` Ephraim Gadsby ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Roger Barnett @ 2000-02-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th 2000-02-29 0:00 ObjectAda and Feb 29th Roger Barnett @ 2000-02-29 0:00 ` Ephraim Gadsby 2000-03-01 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-02-29 0:00 ` Ted Dennison ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Ephraim Gadsby @ 2000-02-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th 2000-02-29 0:00 ` Ephraim Gadsby @ 2000-03-01 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-03-07 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2000-03-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th 2000-03-01 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 2000-03-07 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 2000-03-07 0:00 ` Hyman Rosen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 2000-03-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th 2000-03-07 0:00 ` Nick Roberts @ 2000-03-07 0:00 ` Hyman Rosen 2000-03-07 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Hyman Rosen @ 2000-03-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th 2000-03-07 0:00 ` Hyman Rosen @ 2000-03-07 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 2000-03-08 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 2000-03-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 2000-03-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th 2000-03-07 0:00 ` Hyman Rosen 2000-03-07 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony @ 2000-03-08 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 2000-03-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Richard D Riehle @ 2000-03-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th 2000-03-07 0:00 ` Hyman Rosen 2000-03-07 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 2000-03-08 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle @ 2000-03-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-03-08 0:00 ` Hyman Rosen 2 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-03-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th 2000-03-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 2000-03-08 0:00 ` Hyman Rosen 2000-03-08 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff 2000-03-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Hyman Rosen @ 2000-03-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th 2000-03-08 0:00 ` Hyman Rosen @ 2000-03-08 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff 2000-03-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-03-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Brian Rogoff @ 2000-03-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th 2000-03-08 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff @ 2000-03-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-03-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th 2000-03-08 0:00 ` Hyman Rosen 2000-03-08 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff @ 2000-03-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2000-03-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th 2000-02-29 0:00 ObjectAda and Feb 29th Roger Barnett 2000-02-29 0:00 ` Ephraim Gadsby @ 2000-02-29 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-02-29 0:00 ` Pat Rogers 2000-02-29 0:00 ` Frank J. Lhota 3 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2000-02-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th 2000-02-29 0:00 ObjectAda and Feb 29th Roger Barnett 2000-02-29 0:00 ` Ephraim Gadsby 2000-02-29 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 2000-02-29 0:00 ` Pat Rogers 2000-02-29 0:00 ` Frank J. Lhota 3 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Pat Rogers @ 2000-02-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th 2000-02-29 0:00 ObjectAda and Feb 29th Roger Barnett ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2000-02-29 0:00 ` Pat Rogers @ 2000-02-29 0:00 ` Frank J. Lhota 2000-02-29 0:00 ` DuckE 3 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Frank J. Lhota @ 2000-02-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: ObjectAda and Feb 29th 2000-02-29 0:00 ` Frank J. Lhota @ 2000-02-29 0:00 ` DuckE 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: DuckE @ 2000-02-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2000-03-09 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2000-02-29 0:00 ObjectAda and Feb 29th Roger Barnett 2000-02-29 0:00 ` Ephraim Gadsby 2000-03-01 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-03-07 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 2000-03-07 0:00 ` Hyman Rosen 2000-03-07 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 2000-03-08 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 2000-03-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-03-08 0:00 ` Hyman Rosen 2000-03-08 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff 2000-03-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-03-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2000-02-29 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-02-29 0:00 ` Pat Rogers 2000-02-29 0:00 ` Frank J. Lhota 2000-02-29 0:00 ` DuckE
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox