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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-04 11:33:11 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!199.45.49.37!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny03.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: Hyman Rosen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030419 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc Subject: Re: Using Ada for device drivers? References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304240446.493ca906@posting.google.com> <3EA7E0E3.8020407@crs4.it> <9fa75d42.0304240950.45114a39@posting.google.com> <4a885870.0304291909.300765f@posting.google.com> <416273D61ACF7FEF.82C1D1AC17296926.FF0BFD4934A03813@lp.airnews.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 18:33:10 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.84.190.188 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny03.gnilink.net 1052073190 162.84.190.188 (Sun, 04 May 2003 14:33:10 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 14:33:10 EDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:63100 comp.object:62707 comp.lang.ada:36940 misc.misc:13925 Date: 2003-05-04T18:33:10+00:00 List-Id: Georg Bauhaus wrote: > Answer: There is no trace of "distribution", not even of concurrency, > in C. I wonder how that distinct feature of Ada vs C can be > discarded, economically. Because people have in fact written multithreaded and distributed programs in C and in C++, so it's not exactly a mystery how to do it. Furthermore, that Ada 95 had to come up with a new concurrency mechanism (protected objects) is evidence that people were unhappy with the facilities available in Ada 83, at least for some uses. One could then make an argument against Ada by asking whether it is certain that Ada got it right this time.