From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 7 Jun 93 17:02:30 GMT
From: agate!overload.lbl.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil!shimeal
l@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (timothy shimeall)
Subject: Re: How to Make Ada more widely used?
Message-ID: <C89Go6.ny@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <CBARBER.93Jun4174524@apricot-fddi.bbn.com> cbarber@apricot-fddi.bbn
.com (Chris Barber) writes:
>In article <C83xAE.MMs@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil 
>(timothy shimeall) writes:
>
>   , and, in fact, there are large portability problems for non-trivial 
>   non-Ada-based applications across even rather similar environments.  
>   (Right now, I'm trying to port the Aegis project-control system from 
>   Sun to Iris, and the bug-chasing is annoyingly complex...)
>
>Is this the fault of the languages used or of differences between 
>operating systems?

Actually, it's the fault of the support libraries.  There are subtle
and gross differences between the libraries.  Even when the syntax
is identical, the semantics are apparently a bit different.

I don't intend to slam C, but there ARE portability problems with
that language that are much reduced in Ada, due to the compiler
verification process and the emphasis on standard development.
Much of that process and emphasis derives from the Mandate.
					Tim