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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,56250291936154a0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: nickerson@pundit.ds.boeing.com () Subject: Re: OS Bindings (was: Where is the elusive jump command?) Date: 2000/04/08 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 608473210 Sender: nickerson@mirage.boeing.com () X-Nntp-Posting-Host: pundit.ds.boeing.com References: <38D771CA.D41AF9B5@port.ac.uk> <8bq7ku$mc8$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38E0E723.C39C392@quadruscorp.com> <8brfm4$4uc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8brn4k$p6i$1@slb0.atl.mindspring.net> <8brrpj$i04$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38E312F8.78883ACB@icn.siemens.de> <8c4rvf$d9k$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <2000Apr5.070127.1@eisner> <2000Apr6.081305.1@eisner> <2000Apr6.101035.1@eisner> <8cilej$bfc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Organization: Boeing Defense & Space Group / Software Systems Reply-To: nickerson@pundit.ds.boeing.com () Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-04-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <8cilej$bfc$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar writes: |>In article <2000Apr6.101035.1@eisner>, |> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) wrote: |>> Certainly not, but I would expect vendors of any software |>> product on an operating system would have to conform to |>> expectations of those who use the operating system in order to |>> have any success. In the case of compilers, this means |>> bindings. |> |>I certainly see why you might think this, coming from a DEC Ada |>environment on VMS, where people have always been happy to |>heavily contaminate (from a portability point of view) their |>programs with starlet stuff. ??? contaminate - that's provocative; in my area we usuallly chose isolation of OS calls rather than purported "portable" things like POSIX; historically for us that even included the ubiquitous C RTL; this gives rise to a system that has but 1 malloc/calloc, 1 fopen, 1 strcpy, etc etc etc ...; this (arguable) philosophy gives a solid path to portablity; |>But in our experience, most people want to *minimize* direct |>operating system connections that tie their programs to a |>particular operating system. For example, they would rather |>use the Posix interface than make direct calls to unix service |>routines, or use GtkAda rather than make direct calls to |>Win32 services on NT. obviously agree on "minimize direct operating system" calls; am not familiar with GtkAda but believe it's not part of GNAT; does GtkAda support VMS and how long has it been around; --bn (Bart Nickerson) nickerson@pundit.ds.boeing.com (206) 662-0183