RE: INFO-ADA Digest V93 #359

["Larry Keeler" <keeler@ntsc-rd.navy.mil>]

In Message-ID: <EMERY.93Jun2132328@goldfinger.mitre.org>
	emery@mitre-bedford.arpa  (David Emery) writes:

>Much of the stuff you're asking for, particularly dealing with
>directories, are not language issues, but operating system issues.
>That's why there are C and Ada (and FORTRAN) bindings to POSIX.  
>
>The POSIX/Ada binding covers both command line arguments and access to
>directories, as well as a lot of other "unix-like" stuff.  
>
>Look for some string handling packages from the Ada Technology
>Insertion Program later this year (coming attractions...).
>
>				dave

Exactly!  But the C (and coincidentally C++) bindings are so well integrated 
with the C language that many people do not realize when they are using o/s
features vs language features, when they are programming in C.  Such is not the
 
case, and will not be the case (from what I heard at Tri-Ada92), when one wishe
s
to use Unix operating system features when programming in Ada.  It is my under-
standing that the Unix-C (C++) community has mandated that no POSIX bindings to
any language other than C or C++ may be well integrated.  No doubt this
unannounced "mandate" has been of considerable commercial benefit to the 
C/C++ commercial community.  Of course one would expect that Unix, written in C
,
would have an advantage, but many of the additional raodblocks which have been 
put up, regarding whether thick or thin bindings may be included in the 
standard, and what must be done to get it approved as a standard appear to be
for other than techically sound reasons. (I have heard it suggested that Ada 
should have its own operating system, but I think that this would serve to 
isolate it still more.)  For Ada to be more widely used it needs strong 
bindings to the operating system.  Without them, congressional mandate or no, 
Ada is left out with the also rans.