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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d3bcc180a8b0eea4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 108abf,d3bcc180a8b0eea4 X-Google-Attributes: gid108abf,public From: "jtarver" Subject: Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] Date: 2000/01/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 571844828 References: <387C8859.621FA20B@netscape.net> <387CC1C0.4C57E34C@quadruscorp.com> <387CEE4A.3965@Ganymede.com> <387D011B.2DC@Ganymede.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Trace: 2-00188123c1ebef45d083a408efc7a3625187c26006eb7284f4b1 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:44:51 EST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,rec.aviation.military Date: 2000-01-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Bill Greene wrote in message news:387D011B.2DC@Ganymede.com... > jtarver wrote: > > > > Bill Greene wrote in message > > news:387CEE4A.3965@Ganymede.com... > > > jtarver wrote: > > > > > > > Ada was originally envisioned to be platform transparent. When Data > > General > > > > produced the only 100% compliant compliler and the Ada development > > program > > > > went for the noncompliant VAX as their standard platform that idea was > > out > > > > the window. > > > > > > I don't understand your statement. IIRC, there was a validated Ada 83 > > > compiler for the Data General (written by Rational?) and there were > > > several validated Ada 83 compilers for the DEC VAX (written by SofTech, > > > DEC, and others). What do you mean by "noncompliant VAX"? > > > > I mean the first rule of the compliance was that there be no extensions and > > VAX immediately violated that rule. > > The only mechanism I know of for gauging compliance is formal > validation, which included passing the thousands of tests in the ACVC > (now ACATS) test suite. There were and are a number of validated Ada > compilers for the VAX. LOL. Validating that the VAX does what it says it does is not the same as the compiler meeting the Ada specification. > But what does it mean to say that "VAX" violated a rule? Are you > talking about a particular Ada compiler for the VAX? If so, which > compiler is it and what sort of extensions are you referring to? > Implementation-defined attributes and pragmas? "extended instruction set" is what I am refering to. > Also, it's not entirely accurate to say that Ada was intended to be > platform transparent. That is exactly the original selling point for the funding of Ada. > One of the design goals for the language was to allow low-level access > to the underlying architecture, e.g., in code inserts, which are > certainly not portable. But then, no one writing a code insert for a > VAX would ever expect that code to be portable to a non-VAX platform. The compiler would necessarily be in the immage of the hardware, but the code itself was to be independent. > > > FWIW, my experiences with porting Ada (83 or 95) code have been quite > > > satisfactory. > > > > What did you port as the new platform? > > I've ported among VAX, Sun, Apollo, Windows, OS/2, IBM mainframes, and > Macintosh, to name a few off the top of my head. VAX to Apollo in Ada sucessfully? How much effort was the transfer? John