From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,447bd1cf7a88c198 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-09 12:00:19 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail From: Robert Dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Do we need "Mission-Critical" software? Was: What to Do? Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 19:48:03 GMT Organization: Deja.com Message-ID: <93fpth$697$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <3A4F5A4A.9ABA2C4F@chicagonet.net> <3A4F759E.A7D63F3F@netwood.net> <3A50ABDF.3A8F6C0D@acm.org> <92qdnn$jfg$1@news.huji.ac.il> <3A50C371.8B7B871@home.com> <3A51EC04.91353CE7@uol.com.br> <3A529C97.2CA4777F@home.com> <3A53CB9E.EA7CF86C@uol.com.br> <3A5466DE.811D43A5@acm.org> <932aol$ikc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <932mi6$r2k$1@trog.dera.gov.uk> <9343b1$3g5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <934iuf$eqv$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <937kc7$ssq$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93c0e9$4u6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93e33l$tfu$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93ekmo$a14$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93f73f$mt1$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <93fd9v$s03$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jan 09 19:48:03 2001 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; U) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x61.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3828 Date: 2001-01-09T19:48:03+00:00 List-Id: In article <93fd9v$s03$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, n_brunot@my-deja.com wrote: > In article <93f73f$mt1$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > Robert Dewar wrote: > >Do a little research here to find out just how amusing this ignorance > is! > > Well I followed your advice and found some reasons for my ignorance, > and guess we are far more than I thought in that case :-)) > > For those people here is what I found > > - Jovial seems quite unknown outside embedded programing > folks That's right, definitely it was pretty much only used for mission critical embedded projects (remember that this was the primary original target for Ada, which is why JOVIAL is relevant to the Ada world). > - Quite a lot programmers (a mojority ?) including me weren't > born at Jovial greatest time :-) True, but very likely they were not around when the x86 was invented either, and actually Jovial was still in active use as recently as ten years ago (I think JUG was still meeting that late -- surely someone here will fill in the date -- certainly I talked at a couple of JUG meetings). The fact that something was important in the past should not act as an absolutely barrier to you knowing something about it :-) > - If you check http://www.xinotech.com/xino-jovial.html > you'll find some reasons not to loose too much time about > Jovial future and > characteristics including : Well no one actually claimed JOVIAL had a future, I used it as an arbitrary example of a language that was at this stage less succesful and less used than Ada. I chose this particular example (among hundreds that I might have chosen) because I assumed it would be familiar to Ada knowledgable folks :-) Your quotes on emulation are a bit bizarre, because that represents just one possibility. There are of course JOVIAL applications running today, and being maintained today on native hardware without emulation. Big legacy projects can be around for a long long time. I don't know if any company is providing maintenance on JOVIAL compilers today, but it would not surprise me to find out that they were (Averstar would be the most likely candidate if anyone still is doing JOVIAL support). Most certainly no one suggests running JOVIAL on PC's for doing GUI fiddling :-) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/