Re: Is C/C++ the future? (LONG LONG POST)

[emery@goldfinger.mitre.org (David Emery)]

>In short, join those standards committees and vote NO to C-based call
>specifications.  Then join both the committees that do the C reference
>spec and the committees that do the Ada reference spec.  Try to get
>them to do BOTH specs in the same book.  Teach all those
>C-knowledgeable standards committee members that thinking in C breaks
>everyone else (including their C++ compatriots.)

It's not productive to vote NO for C bindings.  After all, C
programmers have to make a living, too.  NO votes should be based on
technical considerations, not language biases.  We don't like it when
people do it to Ada bindings, so we shouldn't do this for other
languages.  

But I completely agree with the rest of this.  There are plenty of
opportunities for developing standard Ada bindings.  The POSIX/Ada
group, IEEE P1003.5, needs people interested in working on the
following list of potential projects:
	MOTIF (IEEE 1295) and Ada
	Ada Real-Time (IEEE 1003.4a/1003.4b)
	Ada development interface (IEEE 1003.2 for Ada)
	Additions to the System Call Interface (IEEE 1003.1b)
	Protocol Independent Networking (IEEE 1003.8)
	Other networking (e.g. Sockets) (IEEE 1003.12)
	  and many more

For more information, contact Jim Longers, IEEE PASC Chair,
lonjers@planet8.sp.paramax.com, or myself.

				dave
--
--The preceeding opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
--The MITRE Corporation or its sponsors. 
-- "A good plan violently executed -NOW- is better than a perfect plan
--  next week"                                      George Patton
-- "Any damn fool can write a plan.  It's the execution that gets you
--  all screwed up"                              James Hollingsworth
-------------------------------------------------------------------------