* [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] @ 2000-01-12 0:00 Rocky 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Rocky @ 2000-01-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 54 bytes --] Would someone from the Ada community care to join in? [-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 4151 bytes --] From: "jtarver" <jtarver@tminet.com> Subject: Re: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:49:05 -0800 Message-ID: <A1Se4.2088$iy5.100593@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> Harry Andreas <andreas@baloney.org> wrote in message news:andreas-1101001558400001@x-147-16-144-157.rsc.raytheon.com... > In article <388299ca.2188436@news.xmission.com>, sferrin@xmission.com (D. > Scott Ferrin) wrote: > > > >The people producing the parts have a contract to do so and there are also > > >specialty suppliers that stock obsolete parts for currently operating > > >airplanes. The i960 and all Intel's military foundry is gone now. None of > > >the specialty suppliers bought a bunch of i960 mil-spec processors because > > >there was no market for them. So as with any unmaintainable airplane system > > >the MPP must be replaced for production; as they will be unsupportable in > > >the field. This is that much more powerful than a cray central processor we > > >have heard so much about. > > > > > >John > > > > > > > > > So nobody knows this or is it something only you are privy to? So how > > do they plan on building these fighters with no chips to go in them? > > John and I have had this discussion before. He insists on maintaining > [pun] this story even though it's not true. What part of the story is not true Harry? The way you get to cray like speed with micros is to use the geometric improvement in processing power indicated for parallel processors. > The F-22 CIP was designed from day 1 to be able to easily upgrade the > processor, and other chip technologies, without re-designing the entire > system. Writing in Ada does this for you, supposedly. > This was a key feature of PAVE PACE architectures which are de rigeur > today but which F-22 was the first real implementation. > We knew during the YF and demval phases that we would be using different > processor chips for production. It's unavoidable given today's fast moving > market. The processor used in the MPP was already obsolete by then. > The application software is written without direct calls to the hardware. > Everything goes through the OS which acts as a buffer between the physical > hardware and the application code. So when your processor chip goes off > market, you replace it and part of the OS and theoretically the tactical > software doesn't have to change [which is the biggest cost item]. The > devil is in the details however. [BTW, I'm no software guy. There's a > million details that makes this possible.] It will be highly impressive to see a version of Ada that is actually transportable. The first thing the development of Ada compilers did was allow extensions in direct violation of the charter for the system. This worked to deliver the pork to Boston, but really comprimised the intent of the DARPA program funding Ada. John ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-12 0:00 [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] Rocky @ 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 2000-01-12 0:00 ` jtarver 0 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Marin D. Condic @ 2000-01-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > > It will be highly impressive to see a version of Ada that is actually > transportable. The first thing the development of Ada compilers did was > allow extensions in direct violation of the charter for the system. This > worked to deliver the pork to Boston, but really comprimised the intent of > the DARPA program funding Ada. > > John I worked F22 engine control software written in Ada for years - and may yet again someday. We were having a similar problem with respect to the M68040 becoming obsolete and needing to be replaced (probably by the PowerPC) as the engine goes into production. I'll throw my $0.02 worth in: There is not now, nor has there ever been, *any* computer language that is 100% portable. *Especially* in the field of embedded computers. So when portability comes up, you have to ask the question as a matter of degree. Ada is the most portable language I have ever worked with. I have dragged large chunks of Ada code out of an embedded environment and compiled it with zero modifications on a Sun workstation and on a PC and had it run just as it did in the embedded box. I have had very similar experiences with a large number of other bodies of code (non-embedded) so I don't think this was unique. The trick with programming long lived embedded computers is knowing how to isolate the things which are going to be processor/system specific. That way, when you have to upgrade to new hardware, the problem isn't as horrific. The biggest problem is that changing anything in the box means you have to go through huge amounts of revalidation of the system, and this is an issue independent of the processor or language you choose to use. Ada has always been a big help in enhancing portability, but it can never solve all of the problems. No language can. MDC -- ============================================================= Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - 1.800.555.3393 1015-116 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 http://www.quadruscorp.com/ m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m Visit my web site at: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin." -- Allan Meltzer, Economist ============================================================= ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic @ 2000-01-12 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Bill Greene 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 0 siblings, 2 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: jtarver @ 2000-01-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin D. Condic <mcondic-nospam@quadruscorp.com> wrote in message news:387CC1C0.4C57E34C@quadruscorp.com... > > > > It will be highly impressive to see a version of Ada that is actually > > transportable. The first thing the development of Ada compilers did was > > allow extensions in direct violation of the charter for the system. This > > worked to deliver the pork to Boston, but really comprimised the intent of > > the DARPA program funding Ada. > > > > John > > I worked F22 engine control software written in Ada for years - and may > yet again someday. We were having a similar problem with respect to the > M68040 becoming obsolete and needing to be replaced (probably by the > PowerPC) as the engine goes into production. I'll throw my $0.02 worth > in: > > There is not now, nor has there ever been, *any* computer language that > is 100% portable. *Especially* in the field of embedded computers. So > when portability comes up, you have to ask the question as a matter of > degree. "It all depends", as they say. > Ada is the most portable language I have ever worked with. I have > dragged large chunks of Ada code out of an embedded environment and > compiled it with zero modifications on a Sun workstation and on a PC and > had it run just as it did in the embedded box. I have had very similar > experiences with a large number of other bodies of code (non-embedded) > so I don't think this was unique. Ada was originally envisioned to be platform transparent. When Data General produced the only 100% compliant compliler and the Ada development program went for the noncompliant VAX as their standard platform that idea was out the window. > The trick with programming long lived embedded computers is knowing how > to isolate the things which are going to be processor/system specific. > That way, when you have to upgrade to new hardware, the problem isn't as > horrific. The biggest problem is that changing anything in the box means > you have to go through huge amounts of revalidation of the system, and > this is an issue independent of the processor or language you choose to > use. Ada has always been a big help in enhancing portability, but it can > never solve all of the problems. No language can. Well you know I'd like to argue with you, but there is little in what you wrote to dispute. John ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-12 0:00 ` jtarver @ 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Bill Greene [not found] ` <Ft6f4.2216$iy5.114812@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 1 sibling, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Bill Greene @ 2000-01-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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"? FWIW, my experiences with porting Ada (83 or 95) code have been quite satisfactory. -- William R. Greene 1100 Perimeter Park Drive Ganymede Software, Inc. Suite 104 http://www.ganymede.com Morrisville, NC 27560 USA Phone: (919) 469-0997, ext. 280 Fax: (919) 469-5553 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <Ft6f4.2216$iy5.114812@typ12.deja.bcandid.com>]
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] [not found] ` <Ft6f4.2216$iy5.114812@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> @ 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Bill Greene 2000-01-12 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-12 0:00 ` David Tannen 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 2 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Bill Greene @ 2000-01-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) jtarver wrote: > > Bill Greene <wrg@Ganymede.com> 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. 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? Also, it's not entirely accurate to say that Ada was intended to be platform transparent. 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. > > > 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. -- William R. Greene 1100 Perimeter Park Drive Ganymede Software, Inc. Suite 104 http://www.ganymede.com Morrisville, NC 27560 USA Phone: (919) 469-0997, ext. 280 Fax: (919) 469-5553 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Bill Greene @ 2000-01-12 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Bill Greene ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: jtarver @ 2000-01-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Bill Greene <wrg@Ganymede.com> wrote in message news:387D011B.2DC@Ganymede.com... > jtarver wrote: > > > > Bill Greene <wrg@Ganymede.com> 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-12 0:00 ` jtarver @ 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Bill Greene [not found] ` <3d8f4.2267$iy5.117569@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> 2000-01-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-01-13 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 2 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Bill Greene @ 2000-01-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) jtarver wrote: > > The only mechanism I know of for gauging compliance is formal > > validation, which included passing the thousands of tests in the ACVC > > (now ACATS) test suite. There were and are a number of validated Ada > > compilers for the VAX. > > LOL. Validating that the VAX does what it says it does is not the same as > the compiler meeting the Ada specification. The ACVC suite does not "validate that the VAX does what it says it does." Individual ACVC tests are designed (and named) to establish a compiler's compliance to specific chapters and paragraphs of the Ada Reference Manual, which *is* the Ada specification. > > > But what does it mean to say that "VAX" violated a rule? Are you > > talking about a particular Ada compiler for the VAX? If so, which > > compiler is it and what sort of extensions are you referring to? > > Implementation-defined attributes and pragmas? > > "extended instruction set" is what I am refering to. ??? > VAX to Apollo in Ada sucessfully? How much effort was the transfer? I had to run the compiler and linker. -- William R. Greene 1100 Perimeter Park Drive Ganymede Software, Inc. Suite 104 http://www.ganymede.com Morrisville, NC 27560 USA Phone: (919) 469-0997, ext. 280 Fax: (919) 469-5553 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <3d8f4.2267$iy5.117569@typ12.deja.bcandid.com>]
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] [not found] ` <3d8f4.2267$iy5.117569@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> @ 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Bill Greene 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Bill Greene @ 2000-01-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) jtarver wrote: > > Bill Greene <wrg@Ganymede.com> wrote in message > news:387D0C1B.9D2@Ganymede.com... > > The ACVC suite does not "validate that the VAX does what it says it > > does." > > Individual ACVC tests are designed (and named) to establish a compiler's > > compliance to specific chapters and paragraphs of the Ada Reference > > Manual, which *is* the Ada specification. > > Who wrote the Ada reference manual you V/V to? Was it Digital Equipment? For Ada 83, "The Reference Manual for the Ada Programming Language" is ANSI/MIL-STD-1815A-1983. It's also FIPS-PUB-119/NAC. It's also an ISO standard, but I don't have the document number with me. You can find a link to the individual chapters at http://www.adaic.com/standards/ada83.html. No single author is identified. Nowadays, Ada means Ada 95, and links to its reference manual and rationale are at http://www.adaic.com/standards/ada95.html. HTH. -- William R. Greene 1100 Perimeter Park Drive Ganymede Software, Inc. Suite 104 http://www.ganymede.com Morrisville, NC 27560 USA Phone: (919) 469-0997, ext. 280 Fax: (919) 469-5553 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] [not found] ` <3d8f4.2267$iy5.117569@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Bill Greene @ 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Keith Thompson @ 2000-01-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "jtarver" <jtarver@tminet.com> writes: > Bill Greene <wrg@Ganymede.com> wrote in message > news:387D0C1B.9D2@Ganymede.com... > Who wrote the Ada reference manual you V/V to? Was it Digital Equipment? No. The Ada reference manual and the validation suite are the same for all compilers and systems. > > > > 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. > > > > ??? > > That is what I thought. What is what you thought? I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by "extended instruction set". Certainly Ada compilers for the VAX can provide implementation-specific pragmas and attributes, this is allowed by the standard. They also provide machine-code insertions (which aren't expected to be portable) and additional library packages (which are implemented *in* Ada; they aren't extensions to the language itself). None of this makes it particularly difficult to write portable code that will work properly on a VAX or anywhere else. Can you provide an example of what you're talking about? -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst> Welcome to the last year of the 20th century. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-12 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Bill Greene @ 2000-01-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-01-13 0:00 ` Jeff Carter 2000-01-13 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-13 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 2 siblings, 2 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2000-01-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <Dt7f4.2222$iy5.92651@typ12.deja.bcandid.com>, "jtarver" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote: > VAX to Apollo in Ada sucessfully? How much effort was the transfer? FWIW: We wrote a real-time scheduler in Ada that compiles and runs withouth modification on vxWorks using GreenHills AdaMulti and on NT using Gnat. Obviously it isn't exactly real time when running on NT, but we can hardly blame Ada for that. :-) Our entire flight sim would probably be runnable non-realtime on NT if you could configure an NT PC with the right hardware. -- T.E.D. http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 2000-01-13 0:00 ` Jeff Carter [not found] ` <yxof4.2433$iy5.130692@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> 2000-01-13 0:00 ` jtarver 1 sibling, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Jeff Carter @ 2000-01-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <85ko9c$7e$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote: > In article <Dt7f4.2222$iy5.92651@typ12.deja.bcandid.com>, > "jtarver" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote: > > > VAX to Apollo in Ada sucessfully? How much effort was the transfer? > > FWIW: We wrote a real-time scheduler in Ada that compiles and runs > withouth modification on vxWorks using GreenHills AdaMulti and on NT > using Gnat. Obviously it isn't exactly real time when running on NT, but > we can hardly blame Ada for that. :-) > > Our entire flight sim would probably be runnable non-realtime on NT if > you could configure an NT PC with the right hardware. Those of us with actual experience with Ada do not consider this unusual. I was involved in real-time communications protocol stacks for a big-endian PowerPC under VxWorks that were used without change on a little-endian PC under Win9X. I have developed numerous applications that ran without change on VAXs, UNIX boxes, and PCs. One has to conciously intend the code to be portable, but other than that there's "nothing to it". -- Jeff Carter "Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time." -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <yxof4.2433$iy5.130692@typ12.deja.bcandid.com>]
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] [not found] ` <yxof4.2433$iy5.130692@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> @ 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Tarjei T. Jensen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Tarjei T. Jensen @ 2000-01-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) jtarver wrote : > >So we have your personal guarantee the hardware change will be completely >trouble free? Nobody can guarantee that you won't make stupid choices. Ada is a tool that enables you to create portable code, but it will not force you to do so. Greetings, ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-01-13 0:00 ` Jeff Carter @ 2000-01-13 0:00 ` jtarver 1 sibling, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: jtarver @ 2000-01-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message news:85ko9c$7e$1@nnrp1.deja.com... > In article <Dt7f4.2222$iy5.92651@typ12.deja.bcandid.com>, > "jtarver" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote: > > > VAX to Apollo in Ada sucessfully? How much effort was the transfer? > > FWIW: We wrote a real-time scheduler in Ada that compiles and runs > withouth modification on vxWorks using GreenHills AdaMulti and on NT > using Gnat. Obviously it isn't exactly real time when running on NT, but > we can hardly blame Ada for that. :-) Sure I could. > Our entire flight sim would probably be runnable non-realtime on NT if > you could configure an NT PC with the right hardware. Cool. John > http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-12 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Bill Greene 2000-01-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 2000-01-13 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 2 siblings, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Richard D Riehle @ 2000-01-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <Dt7f4.2222$iy5.92651@typ12.deja.bcandid.com>, "jtarver" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote: > >Bill Greene <wrg@Ganymede.com> wrote in message >news:387D011B.2DC@Ganymede.com... >> Also, it's not entirely accurate to say that Ada was intended to be >> platform transparent. > >That is exactly the original selling point for the funding of Ada. Well, not exactly. One of the selling points for a language such as Ada was portability, not transparency. There is a difference. In practice, most of Ada software has been portable. The exceptions have been low-level routines that incorporate platform-specific information in their implementation. For example, the interrupt scheme for a VAX will be quite different from that on an PowerPC. I think the extensions you cite are packages provided by the compiler publisher that enable the programmer to take advantage of capabilities of the targeted platform. Such packages are quite common. They do not extend the language. Rather, they use the abstraction model of Ada exactly as originally intended. When measured against other languages for portability, Ada turns out to be one of the most portable languages available -- especially the current Ada 95 standard. It is even more portable than Java since it can be used in place of Java to create applets that run on the JVM. As to "selling points," one needs to look at the many other selling points of Ada, as well. These include one very big point: the ability of the compiler to catch the maximum number of errors as early as possible in the development process. From the perspective of software economics, this turns out to be one of the most significant of Ada's "selling points." Richard Riehle ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] [not found] ` <Ft6f4.2216$iy5.114812@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Bill Greene @ 2000-01-12 0:00 ` David Tannen 2000-01-13 0:00 ` Harry Andreas 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 2 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: David Tannen @ 2000-01-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Hi, >I mean the first rule of the compliance was that there be no extensions and >VAX immediately violated that rule. Could you specify exactly what you mean by "no extensions and VAX immediately violated that rule"? I have worked extensively with the DEC Ada compiler and I did not see any "extensions" outside of the LRM. Oh by the way, VAX doesn't produce the manual or spec that is V&V (ie ACVC tested). Ada is defined by the LRM. That is what every vendor has to test against. I know I use to work for an Ada vendor and testing using the ACVCs was part of my responsibility. >> FWIW, my experiences with porting Ada (83 or 95) code have been quite >> satisfactory. > >What did you port as the new platform? I have been involved in maintaining code (about 1msloc) that targeted three different processors and ran on three different hosts (9 combinations). With all of that code we had about 90% of the code in common and 10% varied because of the platform or the target h/w. Ada is a very portable language and the features it provides make it extremely portable. If an application isn't portable that is fault of the developers and most importantly the managers and PMs for that project. An ambassador for Christ David Tannen (tannen@jcdisciples.org) John 14:21 "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." Check Out: http://www.jcdisciples.org/davidtannen/index.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-12 0:00 ` David Tannen @ 2000-01-13 0:00 ` Harry Andreas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Harry Andreas @ 2000-01-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <85j53h$ic0@chronicle.concentric.net>, "David Tannen" <tannen@jcdisciples.org> wrote: > I have been involved in maintaining code (about 1msloc) that > targeted three different processors and ran on three different > hosts (9 combinations). With all of that code we had about > 90% of the code in common and 10% varied because of the > platform or the target h/w. > > Ada is a very portable language and the features it provides > make it extremely portable. If an application isn't portable > that is fault of the developers and most importantly the > managers and PMs for that project. This has pretty much been our experience, too, and is what I was alluding to in a prior message. Ada can be written to be portable if care is taken to make it happen. And on this program it was. -- Harry Andreas the engineering raconteur replace baloney with computer to reply ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] [not found] ` <Ft6f4.2216$iy5.114812@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Bill Greene 2000-01-12 0:00 ` David Tannen @ 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Ed Falis 2 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Marin D. Condic @ 2000-01-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) jtarver wrote: > I mean the first rule of the compliance was that there be no extensions and > VAX immediately violated that rule. > Not exactly true. Extensions have always been allowed if, by "extensions" you mean packages which are provided by the compiler for features not provided in the standard. (Math libraries, etc.) If by "extensions" you mean language constructs not provided for by the syntax of the language, then this is also not exactly accurate. The requirement is that the compiler provide a mode in which it will parse the standard Ada syntax and reject anything that is not standard. However, if the compiler has an "extended" mode in which it will interpret non-standard syntax, that is quite all right too. The goal here was that a project should have a means of restricting itself to the standard language to enhance portability, but if that were not a concern and a compiler had additional capabilities, it should be quite all right to use those facilities. MDC -- ============================================================= Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - 1.800.555.3393 1015-116 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 http://www.quadruscorp.com/ m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m Visit my web site at: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin." -- Allan Meltzer, Economist ============================================================= ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic @ 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Ed Falis 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Bill Greene 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 0 siblings, 2 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Ed Falis @ 2000-01-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <387F8E50.11D27E14@quadruscorp.com>, "Marin D. Condic" <mcondic-nospam@quadruscorp.com> wrote: The requirement > is that the compiler provide a mode in which it will parse the standard > Ada syntax and reject anything that is not standard. However, if the > compiler has an "extended" mode in which it will interpret non-standard > syntax, that is quite all right too. The goal here was that a project > should have a means of restricting itself to the standard language to > enhance portability, but if that were not a concern and a compiler had > additional capabilities, it should be quite all right to use those > facilities. I can't think of any Ada compiler that went that far, though. All "extensions" I'm aware of have either been domain-oriented packages (encouraged by the standard), or implementation-defined pragmas (allowed by the language). DEC Ada featured mostly the former in its Starlet package that enabled access to OS facilities, much as the POSIX/Ada binding enabled access to POSIX compliant OS's. - Ed Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Ed Falis @ 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Bill Greene 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Keith Willshaw 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 1 sibling, 2 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Bill Greene @ 2000-01-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ed Falis wrote: > > In article <387F8E50.11D27E14@quadruscorp.com>, > "Marin D. Condic" <mcondic-nospam@quadruscorp.com> wrote: > The requirement > > is that the compiler provide a mode in which it will parse the standard > > Ada syntax and reject anything that is not standard. However, if the > > compiler has an "extended" mode in which it will interpret non-standard > > syntax, that is quite all right too. The goal here was that a project > > should have a means of restricting itself to the standard language to > > enhance portability, but if that were not a concern and a compiler had > > additional capabilities, it should be quite all right to use those > > facilities. > > I can't think of any Ada compiler that went that far, though. All > "extensions" I'm aware of have either been domain-oriented packages > (encouraged by the standard), or implementation-defined pragmas > (allowed by the language). DEC Ada featured mostly the former in its > Starlet package that enabled access to OS facilities, much as the > POSIX/Ada binding enabled access to POSIX compliant OS's. Earlier in this somewhat-long thread I asked: > 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? and jtarver replied > "extended instruction set" is what I am refering to. Perhaps he is really complaining about the instruction set of a CPU or processor architecture (the VAX), and not about a programming language (Ada) at all. Note his assertion that "VAX" violated some alleged design goal of Ada. Having tried unsuccessfully to discover his meaning by direct questions, all I can conclude is that he is blaming the Ada programming language (which he apparently thought was designed by DEC) for the fact that the VAX is non-compliant with the Data General instruction set! -- William R. Greene 1100 Perimeter Park Drive Ganymede Software, Inc. Suite 104 http://www.ganymede.com Morrisville, NC 27560 USA Phone: (919) 469-0997, ext. 280 Fax: (919) 469-5553 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Bill Greene @ 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Keith Willshaw 1 sibling, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Marin D. Condic @ 2000-01-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Bill Greene wrote: > Perhaps he is really complaining about the instruction set of a CPU or > processor architecture (the VAX), and not about a programming language > (Ada) at all. Note his assertion that "VAX" violated some alleged > design goal of Ada. Having tried unsuccessfully to discover his meaning > by direct questions, all I can conclude is that he is blaming the Ada > programming language (which he apparently thought was designed by DEC) > for the fact that the VAX is non-compliant with the Data General > instruction set! > My experience is that those who publicly abuse the Ada programming language often do so out of ignorance or totally incorrect information about the subject. I'm convinced that the negative views of Ada seen in this thread must be for one of these reasons. We can hope that those with some sort of axe to grind with Ada might be willing to take a look at the complaints they have in light of whatever information we can provide and perhaps come to see that the complaints are misguided. In the mean time, keep up the good work of patiently explaining what Ada is all about. I'm sure it will help others to see its usefulness and perhaps we'll draw a few more users into the fold. :-) MDC -- ============================================================= Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - 1.800.555.3393 1015-116 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 http://www.quadruscorp.com/ m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m Visit my web site at: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin." -- Allan Meltzer, Economist ============================================================= ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Bill Greene 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic @ 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Keith Willshaw 2000-01-15 0:00 ` K. Devlin 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 1 sibling, 2 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Keith Willshaw @ 2000-01-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Bill Greene wrote in message <387FCA73.3A61@Ganymede.com>... >Ed Falis wrote: > >Perhaps he is really complaining about the instruction set of a CPU or >processor architecture (the VAX), and not about a programming language >(Ada) at all. Note his assertion that "VAX" violated some alleged >design goal of Ada. Having tried unsuccessfully to discover his meaning >by direct questions, all I can conclude is that he is blaming the Ada >programming language (which he apparently thought was designed by DEC) >for the fact that the VAX is non-compliant with the Data General >instruction set! > More liley its DEC's own compiler he's complaing about. Their Fortran compilers had lots of extensions that were far from ANSI standard Fortran. My company had to move a lot of this stuff from VMS to Unix and then NT The DEC extensions were a major headache Keith ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Keith Willshaw @ 2000-01-15 0:00 ` K. Devlin 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 1 sibling, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: K. Devlin @ 2000-01-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 02:04:58 -0000, "Keith Willshaw" <keith_willshaw@compuserve.com> wrote: > >Bill Greene wrote in message <387FCA73.3A61@Ganymede.com>... >>Ed Falis wrote: >> >>Perhaps he is really complaining about the instruction set of a CPU or >>processor architecture (the VAX), and not about a programming language >>(Ada) at all. Note his assertion that "VAX" violated some alleged >>design goal of Ada. Having tried unsuccessfully to discover his meaning >>by direct questions, all I can conclude is that he is blaming the Ada >>programming language (which he apparently thought was designed by DEC) >>for the fact that the VAX is non-compliant with the Data General >>instruction set! >> > > >More liley its DEC's own compiler he's complaing >about. Their Fortran compilers had lots of extensions >that were far from ANSI standard Fortran. > >My company had to move a lot of this stuff from >VMS to Unix and then NT > >The DEC extensions were a major headache > >Keith > > Have to agree, DEC FORTAN has lots of non-standard extensions, in the DEC FORTRAN manual I have these extensions are printed in blue to make them easy to identify. If you stayed away from them, then the program "should" be portable to any other "standard" FORTRAN. Ada is much better in this regard. One of the nice features of Ada it makes it easier (and as far as the compiler itself, requires it) to compartmentalize the system specific "stuff". If done right (and I realize thats a big IF) changing processors should be easier using Ada than any other language. As far as processors themselves: An option I havn't seen mentioned is the life-time buy option. It has been done in the past and could have been done for the F-22's i960 (but I don't know if it has) where the quantity of processors (or any other part) determined to be needed to build some number of systems and maintain same for a specified period of time, are bought before the vendor stops production and are put into storage. However I see that money is being spent to develop an upgrade for the F18E/F (Military&AeroSpace Electronics Jan 2000 Vol 11 No 1) with a PowerPC based board from DY 4. While the DY 4 board doesn't currently appear to be one of the targets for an Ada compiler, rehosting isn't THAT hard if you start with a compiler that meets the standard for the processor. (I count 7 different vendors of PowerPC based compilers http://www.adaic.org/cgi-bin/vcl/report95.pl) For additional information on Ada: The following URL is an online copy of the Ada reference Manual: http://www.adapower.com/rm95/index.html Section 1.1.3 Conformity of an Implementation with the Standard discusses what's required to conform to the standard (http://www.adapower.com/rm95/arm95_16.html#SEC16). kbd ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Keith Willshaw 2000-01-15 0:00 ` K. Devlin @ 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Keith Willshaw [not found] ` <oHcg4.2964$iy5.180009@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> 1 sibling, 2 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Marin D. Condic @ 2000-01-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Keith Willshaw wrote: > > More liley its DEC's own compiler he's complaing > about. Their Fortran compilers had lots of extensions > that were far from ANSI standard Fortran. > But DEC's Ada compiler was validated and, in my experience, very portable. You had to stay away from Starlet and other similar compiler provided packages if you wanted to port, but if you did so, the port was usually just a matter of recompilation. DEC had one of the better Ada compilers out there and I am unaware of any extensions to the syntax of the language within their compiler. DEC's Fortran compilers often had language extensions (anybody remember Fortran-10 for the DECSystem 10?) which enabled them to utilize system dependent features and I know that porting their Fortran somewhere else could be painful. But I don't recall that they ever did anything similar with Ada. MDC -- ============================================================= Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - 1.800.555.3393 1015-116 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 http://www.quadruscorp.com/ m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m Visit my web site at: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin." -- Allan Meltzer, Economist ============================================================= ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic @ 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Keith Willshaw 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Gautier [not found] ` <38821915.B56815F8@maths.unine.ch> [not found] ` <oHcg4.2964$iy5.180009@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> 1 sibling, 2 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Keith Willshaw @ 2000-01-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin D. Condic wrote in message <3880CCC7.261957BC@quadruscorp.com>... >Keith Willshaw wrote: >> >> More liley its DEC's own compiler he's complaing >> about. Their Fortran compilers had lots of extensions >> that were far from ANSI standard Fortran. >> >But DEC's Ada compiler was validated and, in my experience, very >portable. You had to stay away from Starlet and other similar compiler >provided packages if you wanted to port, but if you did so, the port was >usually just a matter of recompilation. DEC had one of the better Ada >compilers out there and I am unaware of any extensions to the syntax of >the language within their compiler. > OK I don't know ADA so can't comment. >DEC's Fortran compilers often had language extensions (anybody remember >Fortran-10 for the DECSystem 10?) which enabled them to utilize system >dependent features and I know that porting their Fortran somewhere else >could be painful. But I don't recall that they ever did anything similar >with Ada. > Fair enough its just having been bitten by DEC Fortran I tend to be a little suspicious of VAX developed software. Keith ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Keith Willshaw @ 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Gautier [not found] ` <38821915.B56815F8@maths.unine.ch> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Gautier @ 2000-01-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > Fair enough its just having been bitten by DEC Fortran > I tend to be a little suspicious of VAX developed software. (About DEC Ada) You can write perfectly portable code with it; just ignore the extensions and you have `casher' Ada 83... Of course I guess it is simpler in my case (solving partial differential equations) than for technical computing which is made easier with Ada 95 standard features - the Interfaces packages etc. Note that I'm using the same finite element code to solve the equations (on an AXP/OpenVMS) and for the plottings on PC with GNAT - not a comma to change! -- Gautier _____\\________________\_______\ http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <38821915.B56815F8@maths.unine.ch>]
[parent not found: <85t9oa$867$1@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>]
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] [not found] ` <85t9oa$867$1@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com> @ 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Gautier 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Keith Willshaw 0 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Gautier @ 2000-01-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Keith Willshaw wrote: > >(About DEC Ada) You can write perfectly portable code with it; > >just ignore the extensions and you have `casher' Ada 83... > >Of course I guess it is simpler in my case (solving partial differential > >equations) than for technical computing which is made easier with > >Ada 95 standard features - the Interfaces packages etc. > >Note that I'm using the same finite element code to solve the > >equations (on an AXP/OpenVMS) and for the plottings on PC > >with GNAT - not a comma to change! > Its of course perfectly possible to that with any language With many, surely! My remark was not to `sell' Ada but to clarify that DEC Ada is not incompatible with the standard - it covers a large portion of what can be programmed... Just curious: * Do you have also _one_ makefile ? * Is there no conditional defines in the source code files that make differences between the Windows NT/9x ,SG Irix, Solaris, Dec Unix, RS6000 and HP Unix platforms ? I ask it because many resources (in C) on the Web claim to be portable but in fact are only ported on many platforms, with conditional defines that switch even basic type definitions, memory management etc. e.g. Info-Zip stuff. -- Gautier _____\\________________\_______\_________ http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/gsoft.htm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Gautier @ 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Keith Willshaw 0 siblings, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Keith Willshaw @ 2000-01-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Gautier wrote in message <38826BCE.6FB484B3@maths.unine.ch>... > >Just curious: > * Do you have also _one_ makefile ? Yes > * Is there no conditional defines in the source code files that make differences > between the Windows NT/9x ,SG Irix, Solaris, Dec Unix, RS6000 and HP Unix > platforms ? > We use machine dependent libraries to handle the differences between implementations. This is mainly for issues like FileIO Graphics etc. The idea is that the calls to those machine dependent libraries are the same what ever implementation is required. Once a set of these libraries is stable they rarely change In reality there are two main graphics libraries Windows and Motif and the file I/O parts are also essentially split between UNIX and Win9x with same differences in the RS implementation >I ask it because many resources (in C) on the Web claim to be portable >but in fact are only ported on many platforms, with conditional defines >that switch even basic type definitions, memory management etc. >e.g. Info-Zip stuff. > No thats a pain We actually have 4 develiopers sharing the same source code mounted off our main Sun Server. Each has a Unix Box of different type and a PC They simply compile for each target from the same code. There's a script which checks the machine ID and links the correct machine libraries. Keith ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <oHcg4.2964$iy5.180009@typ12.deja.bcandid.com>]
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] [not found] ` <oHcg4.2964$iy5.180009@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> @ 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 2000-01-16 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-17 0:00 ` K. Devlin 0 siblings, 2 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Keith Thompson @ 2000-01-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "jtarver" <jtarver@tminet.com> writes: > Nothing like having the rules change to deliver that Boston pork. DEC had > extensions when their computer became the defacto standard for Ada. At the > time any extensions to Ada were forbidden. Data General was rightiously > upset when this was done. I was working SDI in the 80s when Ada became the > perfered controls language. Please be specific. What extensions are you referring to? (BTW, I was working on Ada compilers in the 80s.) > Ada suxs. Yeah, whatever. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst> Welcome to the last year of the 20th century. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Keith Thompson @ 2000-01-16 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-16 0:00 ` David Starner ` (3 more replies) 2000-01-17 0:00 ` K. Devlin 1 sibling, 4 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: jtarver @ 2000-01-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com> wrote in message news:yecaem64cny.fsf@king.cts.com... > "jtarver" <jtarver@tminet.com> writes: > > Nothing like having the rules change to deliver that Boston pork. DEC had > > extensions when their computer became the defacto standard for Ada. At the > > time any extensions to Ada were forbidden. Data General was rightiously > > upset when this was done. I was working SDI in the 80s when Ada became the > > perfered controls language. > > Please be specific. What extensions are you referring to? (BTW, I > was working on Ada compilers in the 80s.) I am refering to VAX Ada compilers with extended instruction sets. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? John ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-16 0:00 ` jtarver @ 2000-01-16 0:00 ` David Starner 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Gautier ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: David Starner @ 2000-01-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 09:26:46 -0800, jtarver <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote: > >Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com> wrote in message >news:yecaem64cny.fsf@king.cts.com... >> "jtarver" <jtarver@tminet.com> writes: >> > Nothing like having the rules change to deliver that Boston pork. DEC >had >> > extensions when their computer became the defacto standard for Ada. At >the >> > time any extensions to Ada were forbidden. Data General was rightiously >> > upset when this was done. I was working SDI in the 80s when Ada became >the >> > perfered controls language. >> >> Please be specific. What extensions are you referring to? (BTW, I >> was working on Ada compilers in the 80s.) > >I am refering to VAX Ada compilers with extended instruction sets. Do you >have a reading comprehension problem? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? No one knows what you mean by that, so repeating it won't do any good. What do you mean by "extended instruction sets"? -- David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org If you wish to strive for peace of soul then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-16 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-16 0:00 ` David Starner @ 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Gautier 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 3 siblings, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Gautier @ 2000-01-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > > Please be specific. What extensions are you referring to? (BTW, I > > was working on Ada compilers in the 80s.) > > I am refering to VAX Ada compilers with extended instruction sets. Do you > have a reading comprehension problem? Interesting - I'm using DEC Ada for 3 years and I've never seen a single instruction more than standard Ada! Which one(s) ?! -- Gautier _____\\________________\_______\ http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-16 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-16 0:00 ` David Starner 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Gautier @ 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 3 siblings, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Keith Thompson @ 2000-01-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) I should really just give up on this thread; it's showing no signs of going anywhere. "jtarver" <jtarver@tminet.com> writes: > Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com> wrote in message > news:yecaem64cny.fsf@king.cts.com... > > "jtarver" <jtarver@tminet.com> writes: > > > Nothing like having the rules change to deliver that Boston pork. > > > DEC had extensions when their computer became the defacto standard > > > for Ada. At the time any extensions to Ada were forbidden. Data > > > General was rightiously upset when this was done. I was working > > > SDI in the 80s when Ada became the perfered controls language. > > > > Please be specific. What extensions are you referring to? (BTW, I > > was working on Ada compilers in the 80s.) > > I am refering to VAX Ada compilers with extended instruction sets. Do you > have a reading comprehension problem? Not usually, but some writers do give me some trouble. Let's try again. I don't know what you mean by "extended instruction sets" in this context. The phrase "instruction set" usually refers to the set of instructions that can be executed by a specific kind of CPU. In this sense, an extended instruction set would be relevant to users of an Ada compiler only if they're using machine code insertions. MCIs aren't generally considered to be a language extension, though I suppose you could look at them that way. They're a facility for writing deliberately non-portable code, and in my experience they're rarely used. (My experience may be atypical; the Ada code I wrote had to run on multiple platforms, so of course it couldn't use MCIs.) If you're referring to the instruction set the compiler uses for generated code, of course that's going to be non-portable, but that has nothing to do with extensions to Ada. If you're referring to something else, you're not using the term "instruction set" in the same sense most of us do. You refer to extensions to Ada implemented in VAX Ada compilers. Again, what extensions are you talking about? A snippet of sample code that depends on such an extension would be helpful. (Note that implementation-defined pragmas and attributes have always been specifically allowed by the language standard, and implementation-defined library units are not extensions to the language.) -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst> Welcome to the last year of the 20th century. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-16 0:00 ` jtarver ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Keith Thompson @ 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 2000-01-17 0:00 ` jtarver 3 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Marin D. Condic @ 2000-01-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) jtarver wrote: > I am refering to VAX Ada compilers with extended instruction sets. Do you > have a reading comprehension problem? > Everyone here has been trying to politely address your concerns so it would be nice if you were to reciprocate the courtesy. We have already stated that the DEC Ada compiler for the VAX did not implement any syntactic features outside of the language standard. The compiler did provide some system dependent packages and pragmas as permitted by the standard and the documentation did highlight any "implementation defined" behaviors as required by the standard, but there were *no* extensions to the syntax of the language. We have asked what you mean by "extended instruction sets" because clearly you are using the terminology in some way that is not the common understanding. "VAX" itself means "Virtual Address eXtended" because the VAX architecture was conceived as an "extention" to the "instruction set" of the PDP11 computer. That clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with Ada or portability. The instruction set for the VAX architecture was never contracted for by the government to be some sort of "portable" machine instruction set, nor did DEC ever mean for Data General to be able to interpret VAX executable code on their machines or whatever confusion may exist about this. "Instruction Sets" in most common usage refer to machine language instructions - the actual zeros and ones that the processor interprets. Ada permits an implementation to define a mechanism for inserting machine language instructions into an Ada program. This is necessary for those of us who do embedded programming and need to actually get at the hardware and manipulate it. It is, of necessity, machine specific, just as similar machine code insertions in C or Fortran or whatever are going to be. If this is what you are referring to, then of course it will be non portable. Name me a language that permits machine code insertions which is? If by "extended instruction sets" you mean to imply that DEC Ada would parse out tokens from an Ada program which were not defined in the LRM and interpret those tokens in some DEC defined manner, then you need to show us an example, because I know that I am unaware of any such extensions to the language in that compiler and I have used it extensively. DEC did not in any way extend the Ada language by, for example, providing a "do...while" looping construct, or a "case" statement with fallthrough semantics or any such thing. Your claim that Ada (in particular DEC Ada) is not portable runs counter to the experience of those of us who do it every day for a living. If you believe this to be the case, you should post an example of what you mean. MDC -- ============================================================= Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - 1.800.555.3393 1015-116 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 http://www.quadruscorp.com/ m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m Visit my web site at: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin." -- Allan Meltzer, Economist ============================================================= ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic @ 2000-01-17 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Gautier 0 siblings, 2 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: jtarver @ 2000-01-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin D. Condic <mcondic-nospam@quadruscorp.com> wrote in message news:38835B50.B2EF88C6@quadruscorp.com... > jtarver wrote: > > I am refering to VAX Ada compilers with extended instruction sets. Do you > > have a reading comprehension problem? > > > > Everyone here has been trying to politely address your concerns so it > would be nice if you were to reciprocate the courtesy. The person I was responding to does not belong on this thread. > We have already stated that the DEC Ada compiler for the VAX did not > implement any syntactic features outside of the language standard. And having been there at the time I know for a fact that the VAX had an extended instruction set. I made no comment about syntax. John ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-17 0:00 ` jtarver @ 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Gautier 1 sibling, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Keith Thompson @ 2000-01-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "jtarver" <jtarver@tminet.com> writes: > Marin D. Condic <mcondic-nospam@quadruscorp.com> wrote in message > news:38835B50.B2EF88C6@quadruscorp.com... > > jtarver wrote: > > > I am refering to VAX Ada compilers with extended instruction sets. > > > Do you have a reading comprehension problem? > > > > Everyone here has been trying to politely address your concerns so it > > would be nice if you were to reciprocate the courtesy. > > The person I was responding to does not belong on this thread. I believe this refers to me. This looks like a gratuitous personal insult, but as you've pointed out I sometimes have problems understanding what you write. Please clarify. > > We have already stated that the DEC Ada compiler for the VAX did not > > implement any syntactic features outside of the language standard. > > And having been there at the time I know for a fact that the VAX had an > extended instruction set. I made no comment about syntax. If you're talking about the VAX instruction set, you're not saying anything particularly relevant to Ada. You originally mentioned this in the context of the Ada standard, implying that the VAX Ada compiler(s) violated the Ada standard by implementing language extensions. Please clarify. It might be helpful if you would re-phrase your comments rather than repeating them. Concrete examples would be especially helpful. I've nearly lost hope that this thread will lead to anything useful, but I'm prepared to be pleasantly surprised. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst> Welcome to the last year of the 20th century. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-17 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Keith Thompson @ 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Gautier 2000-01-17 0:00 ` jtarver 1 sibling, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Gautier @ 2000-01-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > And having been there at the time I know for a fact that the VAX had an > extended instruction set. I made no comment about syntax. It arouses my curiosity. Just read the release notes of DEC Ada 3.5 (May 1999), found details about options for generating machine instructions for such or such target processor, instructions for the debugger, but - damn - no extended instruction for the Ada language itself. Really interesting. Is it a hidden feature ? Or has it disappeared ? Do you remember an example ? -- Gautier _____\\________________\_______\_________ http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/gsoft.htm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Gautier @ 2000-01-17 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Bill Greene 2000-01-19 0:00 ` Robert S. White 0 siblings, 2 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: jtarver @ 2000-01-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Gautier <gautier.demontmollin@maths.unine.ch> wrote in message news:38838D5A.9EB9F452@maths.unine.ch... > > And having been there at the time I know for a fact that the VAX had an > > extended instruction set. I made no comment about syntax. > > It arouses my curiosity. Just read the release notes of DEC Ada 3.5 (May 1999), > found details about options for generating machine instructions for > such or such target processor, instructions for the debugger, but - damn - > no extended instruction for the Ada language itself. Really interesting. > Is it a hidden feature ? The Ada language itself does not allow extended instruction sets, as I plainly pointed out at the onset of this discussion. > Or has it disappeared ? Do you remember an example ? Another poster has already answered your question. I suggest you go to Deja-News and read the thread. What the poster implied to me is that the extensions are part of a tool set now. John ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-17 0:00 ` jtarver @ 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Bill Greene 2000-01-19 0:00 ` Robert S. White 1 sibling, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Bill Greene @ 2000-01-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) jtarver wrote: > > The Ada language itself does not allow extended instruction sets, as I > plainly pointed out at the onset of this discussion. The reason I and several other posters wore out your patience asking what you meant by this statement was so that we could determine whether your statement was false or was just badly stated. If you are referring to the instruction sets of computers, your statement is false. The Ada standard says nothing of the sort. If you are referring to extensions to the Ada programming language, they were indeed prohibited. This prohibition has nothing to do with the extended instruction set of a particular computer such as the VAX. -- William R. Greene 1100 Perimeter Park Drive Ganymede Software, Inc. Suite 104 http://www.ganymede.com Morrisville, NC 27560 USA Phone: (919) 469-0997, ext. 280 Fax: (919) 469-5553 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-17 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Bill Greene @ 2000-01-19 0:00 ` Robert S. White 2000-01-19 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 1 sibling, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Robert S. White @ 2000-01-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <nhMg4.3374$iy5.215390@typ12.deja.bcandid.com>, jtarver@tminet.com says... > >... What the poster implied to me is that the >extensions are part of a tool set now. And back in 1985 when DEC Ada came out the "extensions" (aka Starlet package) were part of a tool set then. There never were any "DEC Ada extensions". Why don't you just admit that you are/were wrong? -- Robert S. White -- An embedded systems software engineer e-mail reply to reverse of ( add .'s ): com home shift2 rswhite or do a "Reply To All" for direct eMailed cc'd followups. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-19 0:00 ` Robert S. White @ 2000-01-19 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-01-19 0:00 ` Robert S. White 0 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2000-01-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <hx9h4.304$IF5.13456@news.rdc1.il.home.com>, RSWhite@nospam.somewhere.ia.us (Robert S. White) wrote: > In article <nhMg4.3374$iy5.215390@typ12.deja.bcandid.com>, jtarver@tminet.com says... > > > >... What the poster implied to me is that the > >extensions are part of a tool set now. > > And back in 1985 when DEC Ada came out the "extensions" (aka > Starlet package) were part of a tool set then. There never were > any "DEC Ada extensions". Why don't you just admit that you > are/were wrong? That's silly. You can't call Starlet "extensions to Ada" any more than you can call the Motif library "extensions to C". Its just a (big honking) package someone wrote, in Ada. -- T.E.D. http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-19 0:00 ` Ted Dennison @ 2000-01-19 0:00 ` Robert S. White 2000-01-25 0:00 ` Stefan Skoglund 0 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Robert S. White @ 2000-01-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <864hrd$546$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, dennison@telepath.com says... > >In article <hx9h4.304$IF5.13456@news.rdc1.il.home.com>, > RSWhite@nospam.somewhere.ia.us (Robert S. White) wrote: >> In article <nhMg4.3374$iy5.215390@typ12.deja.bcandid.com>, >jtarver@tminet.com says... >> > >> >... What the poster implied to me is that the >> >extensions are part of a tool set now. >> >> And back in 1985 when DEC Ada came out the "extensions" (aka >> Starlet package) were part of a tool set then. There never were >> any "DEC Ada extensions". Why don't you just admit that you >> are/were wrong? > >That's silly. You can't call Starlet "extensions to Ada" any more than >you can call the Motif library "extensions to C". Its just a (big >honking) package someone wrote, in Ada. Exactly! -- Robert S. White -- An embedded systems software engineer e-mail reply to reverse of ( add .'s ): com home shift2 rswhite or do a "Reply To All" for direct eMailed cc'd followups. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-19 0:00 ` Robert S. White @ 2000-01-25 0:00 ` Stefan Skoglund 2000-01-25 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 0 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Stefan Skoglund @ 2000-01-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert S. White wrote: > >That's silly. You can't call Starlet "extensions to Ada" any more than > >you can call the Motif library "extensions to C". Its just a (big > >honking) package someone wrote, in Ada. > > Exactly! Can we agree on one thing ? Every time someone uses a package provided by the vendor they do so of their own volution ? ie if i need a LALR parser in my program i probably picks up aflex ? If someone is doing Ada with a VAX as target they could very well use some package provided by Dec in their Ada offerings. Every time someone decides that it is worthwhile using some package from someone else and running the risk that that package could be unavailable some day ie probably causing a re-write. Like in the case there you go from VMS to UNIX to NT (maybe 2 rewrites and maybe not.) This is one of the differences between Freeware projects like GNAT and vendor-specific products ie the customer is usually out on a limb if the vendor decides to drop some product. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-25 0:00 ` Stefan Skoglund @ 2000-01-25 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 2000-01-26 0:00 ` Mark Lundquist 0 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Richard D Riehle @ 2000-01-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <388E014A.B8F87F5@ebox.tninet.se>, Stefan Skoglund <stetson@ebox.tninet.se> wrote: >Can we agree on one thing ? >Every time someone uses a package provided by the vendor >they do so of their own volution ? ie if i need a LALR parser in >my program i probably picks up aflex ? I would agree that _withing_ a vendor supplied package at the specification level often reflects poor planning. Ordinarily, one should define the specification required for the problem space then _with_ the vendor's package in the package body (or even in a separately compiled subpgram) to effect the actual implementation. This accomplishes several things: 1) The interface is independent of the implementation 2) A different implementation can be used to effect the interface, 3) Vendor dependencies are hidden from users, 4) With Ada 95, we can take advantage of private child units, 5) We are more platform-independent. These are just a few reasons for hiding vendor supplied packages when possible. Granted, it is not always possible or even appropriate. There is even a valid school-of-thought that suggests no relying directly on standard Ada library packages at the specification level. How often does one need all of the resources of Text_IO, or Direct_IO. Instead, a package such as Direct_IO can be _withed_ in the package body to provide primitives necessary for exporting more powerful abstractions. Examples, procedure Open_With_Lock ( ... ); procedure Read_With_Lock ( ... ); procedure Unlock_File ( ... ); and other routines, all of which can be implemented through the services of Direct_IO, for ensuring file security in a task based product. So all the fuss about _extensions_ is just that, "fuss." Experienced Ada software designers have been avoiding such dependencies for a long time. Richard Riehle richard@adaworks.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-25 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle @ 2000-01-26 0:00 ` Mark Lundquist 2000-01-26 0:00 ` Samuel T. Harris 0 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Mark Lundquist @ 2000-01-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Richard D Riehle wrote: > I would agree that _withing_ a vendor supplied package at the > specification level often reflects poor planning. Ordinarily, > one should define the specification required for the problem > space then _with_ the vendor's package in the package body > (or even in a separately compiled subpgram) to effect the actual > implementation. This accomplishes several things: > > 1) The interface is independent of the implementation > 2) A different implementation can be used to effect the > interface, > 3) Vendor dependencies are hidden from users, > 4) With Ada 95, we can take advantage of private child units, > 5) We are more platform-independent. > > These are just a few reasons for hiding vendor supplied packages > when possible. Granted, it is not always possible or even appropriate. > > [...] > > So all the fuss about _extensions_ is just that, "fuss." Experienced > Ada software designers have been avoiding such dependencies for a > long time. Richard, those are good points about using packages to minimize coupling. But it's quite beside the point of the discussion! You're talking about the scope of dependencies, and how to reduce that scope through the use of proper programming techniques. The discussion (the "fuss"?) wasn't about that, it was about the risk to a project of using components supplied by someone else (e.g. a compiler vendor or a third party). I.e., about using them, not hiding vs. exposing them. (I'm talking now about the last 2-3 messages on this sub-thread... before that, there were a huge number of messages trying to make sense of the babblings of some kind of deranged person. The most fruitless exchange of messages I've ever seen. They all pretty much looked like: Deranged Person: @#&$~! grlb, flgmrzz! Ada Person: Excuse me? That was where the "extension" thing came from, but nobody could figure out what the guy meant, and he finally went away). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-26 0:00 ` Mark Lundquist @ 2000-01-26 0:00 ` Samuel T. Harris 0 siblings, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Samuel T. Harris @ 2000-01-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Mark Lundquist wrote: > > Richard D Riehle wrote: > > > I would agree that _withing_ a vendor supplied package at the > > specification level often reflects poor planning. Ordinarily, > > one should define the specification required for the problem > > space then _with_ the vendor's package in the package body > > (or even in a separately compiled subpgram) to effect the actual > > implementation. This accomplishes several things: > > > > 1) The interface is independent of the implementation > > 2) A different implementation can be used to effect the > > interface, > > 3) Vendor dependencies are hidden from users, > > 4) With Ada 95, we can take advantage of private child units, > > 5) We are more platform-independent. > > > > These are just a few reasons for hiding vendor supplied packages > > when possible. Granted, it is not always possible or even appropriate. Yes, less filling AND tastes great. Done this many time before. > > > > [...] > > > > So all the fuss about _extensions_ is just that, "fuss." Experienced > > Ada software designers have been avoiding such dependencies for a > > long time. > > Richard, those are good points about using packages to minimize coupling. > But it's quite beside the point of the discussion! You're talking about > the scope of dependencies, and how to reduce that scope through the use of > proper programming techniques. The discussion (the "fuss"?) wasn't about > that, it was about the risk to a project of using components supplied by > someone else (e.g. a compiler vendor or a third party). I.e., about using > them, not hiding vs. exposing them. I believe Richard's points are to the point. Risk is about cost and benefit. I benefit from using a vendor supplied package but I incur cost in the form of portability. Sometimes this cost is a limitation when the vendor supplied package is something really special doing things not readily available on other platforms. Most times the cost is simply extra effort when porting since most stuff is solved everywhere by someone or another. I use the example of socket libraries. In practical terms, every platform I ever used has/had them but the bindings differ. So I have extra cost using a vendor package. Following Richard's advise, I minimize my cost. Risks are not examined in a void. The cost and payoff of taking the risky road is compared with the cost of taking the safe road (which usually has not payoff which is why one would be considering the risky road in the first place). Now I can decide based on good cost/benefit analysis. Do I grow my own solution with significant development cost concerning things which are not directly related to the problem at hand, or do I take advantage of someone else's work and use a vendor supplied package? As a parting note, please consider that todays vendor specific package may be tomorrows standard. Take the Alsys generic_elementary_functions, and Rational's ASIS stuff. Also consider that what many customers rely upon become de-facto standards and competitors make their own "knock-offs." For this I present the great efforts ACT expends to provide all those VADS and VAX specific idiosynchracies. ACT knows that to get folks to migrate, ACT has to pave the way with these value-added packages. > > (I'm talking now about the last 2-3 messages on this sub-thread... before > that, there were a huge number of messages trying to make sense of the > babblings of some kind of deranged person. The most fruitless exchange of > messages I've ever seen. They all pretty much looked like: > > Deranged Person: @#&$~! grlb, flgmrzz! > Ada Person: Excuse me? > > That was where the "extension" thing came from, but nobody could figure > out what the guy meant, and he finally went away). -- Samuel T. Harris, Principal Engineer Raytheon, Aerospace Engineering Services "If you can make it, We can fake it!" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 2000-01-16 0:00 ` jtarver @ 2000-01-17 0:00 ` K. Devlin 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Chris Douglas ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: K. Devlin @ 2000-01-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) >On 16 Jan 2000 00:57:05 -0800, Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com> wrote: >"jtarver" <jtarver@tminet.com> writes: >> Nothing like having the rules change to deliver that Boston pork. DEC had >> extensions when their computer became the defacto standard for Ada. At the >> time any extensions to Ada were forbidden. Data General was rightiously >> upset when this was done. I was working SDI in the 80s when Ada became the >> perfered controls language. > >Please be specific. What extensions are you referring to? (BTW, I >was working on Ada compilers in the 80s.) > >> Ada suxs. > >Yeah, whatever. > >-- >Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> >San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst> >Welcome to the last year of the 20th century. I would suggest that attempting to reason with jtarver is a waste of time. He clearly hates Ada, appears to hate Lockheed Martin and NOTHING you can "say" nor can any documented proof, change his opinions. I hope he doesn't fly on Boeing 777 A/C as they are as close to 100% Ada based as possible (see http://adaic.org/docs/flyers/boe-777.shtml) He doesn't seem to, or want to, understand that (particularly when DoD "owned" Ada) there was (and still is) only one validation suite. A compiler either met this and received a validation certificate or it didn't. If DEC Ada became the "defacto standard" it was because they had an excellent product and their computers were widely used in the area where Ada was mandated. Of course there were/are differences between compilers. Among others, I've used DEC Ada and also a version of Telesoft Ada ported to the VAX. In the Telesoft version one had Integer (32 bits) and Short_Integer (16 bits). DEC Ada had Integer (16 bits) and Long_Integer (32 Bits). Both compilers were validated and these types were clearly defined in the appropriate place of their respect RM. This particular example wasn't a big deal (nor was it an "extension) as a simple global replace of integer for long_integer and then short_integer to integer or vica-versa was sufficient and of course either compiler would point out the unknown type name. My original cut at the program was in DEC Ada as much due to the excellent error messages as anything else, and then I moved it to Telesoft which is where the one issue (the integer types) surfaced. Granted both compilers targeted the VAX but each was validated and the differences were minor, and those differences were properly documented. IIRC, to do anything other than simple text_io required using package STARLET (which might be jtarver's extension's). This package was/is "legal" and was clearly documented in the appropriate section of the RM in accordance with the standard. kbd ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-17 0:00 ` K. Devlin @ 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Chris Douglas 2000-01-18 0:00 ` P. S. Norby [not found] ` <QHvg4.3143$iy5.200225@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> 2000-01-31 0:00 ` Roga Danar 2 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Chris Douglas @ 2000-01-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) K. Devlin wrote: > ... > I would suggest that attempting to reason with jtarver is a waste of > time. He clearly hates Ada, appears to hate Lockheed Martin and > NOTHING you can "say" nor can any documented proof, change his > opinions. I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Right or wrong, he's a "true believer" that the F-22 and anything related to it is bad. Examining fact doesn't play much of a role in the equation--there's a bit too much emotion at play for that. Don't ask me why. Looking forward to the inevitable reprisal, Chris Douglas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Chris Douglas @ 2000-01-18 0:00 ` P. S. Norby 0 siblings, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: P. S. Norby @ 2000-01-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Chris Douglas wrote: > > K. Devlin wrote: > > > ... > > I would suggest that attempting to reason with jtarver is a waste of > > time. He clearly hates Ada, appears to hate Lockheed Martin and > > NOTHING you can "say" nor can any documented proof, change his > > opinions. > > I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Right or wrong, he's a "true > believer" that the F-22 and anything related to it is bad. Examining fact doesn't > play much of a role in the equation--there's a bit too much emotion at play for > that. Don't ask me why. > > Looking forward to the inevitable reprisal, > Chris Douglas Well, as someone said: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig. P. S. Norby "Software engineers are, in many ways, similar to normal people" -- Scott Adams "No excuses. No embarrassment. No apologies... Ada -- the most trusted and powerful programming language on earth, or in space." -- S. Tucker Taft \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ ( :) ( :) ( :) ( :) ( :) ( :) ( :) ( :) ( :) /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// (Speaking only for myself) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <QHvg4.3143$iy5.200225@typ12.deja.bcandid.com>]
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] [not found] ` <QHvg4.3143$iy5.200225@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> @ 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Stuart Palin 2000-01-17 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-17 0:00 ` David Gillon ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Stuart Palin @ 2000-01-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) jtarver wrote: > K. Devlin <kdevlin@mpinet.net> wrote in message > news:388274ac.42926465@news.mpinet.net... <snip> > > I hope he doesn't fly on Boeing 777 A/C as they are as close to 100% > > Ada based as possible (see http://adaic.org/docs/flyers/boe-777.shtml) > > In fact Boeining studied using Ada and then rejected it along with the ARPA > funding using the language would have provided. In order to fly on a civil > airplane running under Ada you would have to fly on a 717. Of course I only > built 777s; Bees love C. The 777 Flight Control Computer software is written Ada. It is compiled to run on three different processors using three differently compilers. Regards -- Stuart Palin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Stuart Palin @ 2000-01-17 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-17 0:00 ` David Tannen 2000-01-18 0:00 ` K. Devlin 0 siblings, 2 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: jtarver @ 2000-01-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Stuart Palin <stuart.palin@no.spam.gecm.com> wrote in message news:3882DC89.AB2831A9@no.spam.gecm.com... > jtarver wrote: > > K. Devlin <kdevlin@mpinet.net> wrote in message > > news:388274ac.42926465@news.mpinet.net... > > <snip> > > > > I hope he doesn't fly on Boeing 777 A/C as they are as close to 100% > > > Ada based as possible (see http://adaic.org/docs/flyers/boe-777.shtml) > > > > In fact Boeining studied using Ada and then rejected it along with the ARPA > > funding using the language would have provided. In order to fly on a civil > > airplane running under Ada you would have to fly on a 717. Of course I only > > built 777s; Bees love C. > > The 777 Flight Control Computer software is written Ada. My lead when I was at Boeing developed the FCC system for the 777 and claims they chose to not use the Ada. Do you know Dave Mc Laughlin? John ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-17 0:00 ` jtarver @ 2000-01-17 0:00 ` David Tannen 2000-01-18 0:00 ` K. Devlin 1 sibling, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: David Tannen @ 2000-01-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) John, >> The 777 Flight Control Computer software is written Ada. > >My lead when I was at Boeing developed the FCC system for the >777 and claims they chose to not use the Ada. Do you know >Dave Mc Laughlin? I just finished working with about 8 people who worked at Honeywell in Phoenix on the 777 flight software. They all used Ada. I have another friend who has been at Honeywell for a long time (about 8 or 9 years) who has worked on various Boeing projects - all in Ada. I think it is getting harder and harder to believe that you actually know anything about the Ada market. An ambassador for Christ David Tannen (tannen@jcdisciples.org) John 14:21 "Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him." Check Out: http://www.jcdisciples.org/davidtannen/index.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-17 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-17 0:00 ` David Tannen @ 2000-01-18 0:00 ` K. Devlin 1 sibling, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: K. Devlin @ 2000-01-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 09:48:13 -0800, "jtarver" <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote: > >Stuart Palin <stuart.palin@no.spam.gecm.com> wrote in message >news:3882DC89.AB2831A9@no.spam.gecm.com... >> jtarver wrote: >> > K. Devlin <kdevlin@mpinet.net> wrote in message >> > news:388274ac.42926465@news.mpinet.net... >> >> <snip> >> >> > > I hope he doesn't fly on Boeing 777 A/C as they are as close to 100% >> > > Ada based as possible (see http://adaic.org/docs/flyers/boe-777.shtml) >> > >> > In fact Boeining studied using Ada and then rejected it along with the >ARPA >> > funding using the language would have provided. In order to fly on a >civil >> > airplane running under Ada you would have to fly on a 717. Of course I >only >> > built 777s; Bees love C. >> >> The 777 Flight Control Computer software is written Ada. > >My lead when I was at Boeing developed the FCC system for the 777 and claims >they chose to not use the Ada. Do you know Dave Mc Laughlin? > >John > > > Claims???? That doesnt seem to be a very definitive statement. If you were there why hedge? How 'bout proof?? Any documentation you can point us to?? kbd ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] [not found] ` <QHvg4.3143$iy5.200225@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Stuart Palin @ 2000-01-17 0:00 ` David Gillon 2000-01-17 0:00 ` David Starner 2000-01-18 0:00 ` K. Devlin 3 siblings, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: David Gillon @ 2000-01-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) jtarver wrote: > > I hope he doesn't fly on Boeing 777 A/C as they are as close to 100% > > Ada based as possible (see http://adaic.org/docs/flyers/boe-777.shtml) > > In fact Boeining studied using Ada and then rejected it along with the ARPA > funding using the language would have provided. In order to fly on a civil > airplane running under Ada you would have to fly on a 717. Of course I only > built 777s I spent four years or so coding the 777 flight control system in Ada (and as it happens was project point-of-contact for the DEC XD-Ada compiler, which was probably the most trouble-free of the three compilers the code was targetted against). -- David Gillon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] [not found] ` <QHvg4.3143$iy5.200225@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Stuart Palin 2000-01-17 0:00 ` David Gillon @ 2000-01-17 0:00 ` David Starner 2000-01-26 0:00 ` Mark Lundquist 2000-01-18 0:00 ` K. Devlin 3 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: David Starner @ 2000-01-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:01:53 -0800, jtarver <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote: >K. Devlin <kdevlin@mpinet.net> wrote in message >news:388274ac.42926465@news.mpinet.net... >> I hope he doesn't fly on Boeing 777 A/C as they are as close to 100% >> Ada based as possible (see http://adaic.org/docs/flyers/boe-777.shtml) > >In fact Boeining studied using Ada and then rejected it along with the ARPA >funding using the language would have provided. In order to fly on a civil >airplane running under Ada you would have to fly on a 717. Of course I only >built 777s; Bees love C. Comparing the trustworthness of someone who uses the word "sux", ad homidea attacks and doesn't use his real name on posts, to a well documented, highly detailed website . . . I think I know who I will believe. -- David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org If you wish to strive for peace of soul then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-17 0:00 ` David Starner @ 2000-01-26 0:00 ` Mark Lundquist 0 siblings, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Mark Lundquist @ 2000-01-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) David Starner wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:01:53 -0800, jtarver <jtarver@tminet.com> wrote: > >K. Devlin <kdevlin@mpinet.net> wrote in message > >news:388274ac.42926465@news.mpinet.net... > > >> I hope he doesn't fly on Boeing 777 A/C as they are as close to 100% > >> Ada based as possible (see http://adaic.org/docs/flyers/boe-777.shtml) > > > >In fact Boeining studied using Ada and then rejected it along with the ARPA > >funding using the language would have provided. In order to fly on a civil > >airplane running under Ada you would have to fly on a 717. Of course I only > >built 777s; Bees love C. > > Comparing the trustworthness of someone who uses the word "sux", Hey, come on... I use that word all the time! :-) Of course, it's much more effective when there is some content to back it up... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] [not found] ` <QHvg4.3143$iy5.200225@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2000-01-17 0:00 ` David Starner @ 2000-01-18 0:00 ` K. Devlin 2000-01-18 0:00 ` Ed Falis 3 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: K. Devlin @ 2000-01-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:01:53 -0800, "jtarver" <jtarver@tminet.com> >> I would suggest that attempting to reason with jtarver is a waste of >> time. He clearly hates Ada, appears to hate Lockheed Martin and >> NOTHING you can "say" nor can any documented proof, change his >> opinions. > >You are so emotional Keith. > My first name is not Keith,... just one of many errors on your part. >> I hope he doesn't fly on Boeing 777 A/C as they are as close to 100% >> Ada based as possible (see http://adaic.org/docs/flyers/boe-777.shtml) > >In fact Boeining studied using Ada and then rejected it along with the ARPA >funding using the language would have provided. In order to fly on a civil >airplane running under Ada you would have to fly on a 717. Of course I only >built 777s; Bees love C. > >John > > Then I suggest you contact Boeing (and or the AdaIC) and inform them of the false (according to you) assertion made by the AdaIC (follow url I provided). kbd ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-18 0:00 ` K. Devlin @ 2000-01-18 0:00 ` Ed Falis 2000-01-18 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 0 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Ed Falis @ 2000-01-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3883b041.3549326@news.mpinet.net>, kdevlin@mpinet.net (K. Devlin) wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 19:01:53 -0800, "jtarver" <jtarver@tminet.com> > >In fact Boeining studied using Ada and then rejected it along with the ARPA > >funding using the language would have provided. In order to fly on a civil > >airplane running under Ada you would have to fly on a 717. Of course I only > >built 777s; Bees love C. > Then I suggest you contact Boeing (and or the AdaIC) and inform them > of the false (according to you) assertion made by the AdaIC (follow > url I provided). > > kbd Yeah, I kind of wonder why my company got revenue for providing Ada compilers and certification packages for fire control, navigation and braking systems from several 777 subcontracters if this is true. Maybe they just had a lot of money to blow to market Ada. Man, I just love to see that kind of altruism in American business. Course, I could've been hallucinating the commissions I got. - Ed Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-18 0:00 ` Ed Falis @ 2000-01-18 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 0 siblings, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2000-01-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <860n70$cn4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ed Falis <falis@ma.aonix.com> wrote: > of money to blow to market Ada. Man, I just love to see that kind of > altruism in American business. Course, I could've been hallucinating > the commissions I got. Damn. How come *I* never have a hallucination that involves commisions? That sounds like a blast! :-) Mine generally involve my code having no bugs... -- T.E.D. http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-17 0:00 ` K. Devlin 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Chris Douglas [not found] ` <QHvg4.3143$iy5.200225@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> @ 2000-01-31 0:00 ` Roga Danar 2 siblings, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Roga Danar @ 2000-01-31 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Hi, I worked with a contractor fellow who actually carried around to project to project the Ada source code he developed for the 777. Perhaps to convince people like jtarver ;-> jtarver wrote: > Stuart Palin <stuart.palin@no.spam.gecm.com> wrote in message > news:3882DC89.AB2831A9@no.spam.gecm.com... > > jtarver wrote: > > > K. Devlin <kdevlin@mpinet.net> wrote in message > > > news:388274ac.42926465@news.mpinet.net... > > > > <snip> > > > > > > I hope he doesn't fly on Boeing 777 A/C as they are as close to 100% > > > > Ada based as possible (see http://adaic.org/docs/flyers/boe-777.shtml) > > > > > > In fact Boeining studied using Ada and then rejected it along with the > ARPA > > > funding using the language would have provided. In order to fly on a > civil > > > airplane running under Ada you would have to fly on a 717. Of course I > only > > > built 777s; Bees love C. > > > > The 777 Flight Control Computer software is written Ada. > > My lead when I was at Boeing developed the FCC system for the 777 and claims > they chose to not use the Ada. Do you know Dave Mc Laughlin? > > John ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Ed Falis 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Bill Greene @ 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 2000-01-15 0:00 ` David Starner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Marin D. Condic @ 2000-01-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ed Falis wrote: > I can't think of any Ada compiler that went that far, though. All > "extensions" I'm aware of have either been domain-oriented packages > (encouraged by the standard), or implementation-defined pragmas > (allowed by the language). DEC Ada featured mostly the former in its > Starlet package that enabled access to OS facilities, much as the > POSIX/Ada binding enabled access to POSIX compliant OS's. > I don't think I've seen anything in recent years that actually provided syntactic extensions to the language. Virtually all "extensions" have been in the form of either pragmas or packages. However, I seem to recall an early version of the RR compiler that provided some syntactic extensions in the area of I/O because generic packages were not yet implemented. If memory serves, early versions of the Telesoft Ada compiler did something similar. (And I'm still holding a grudge against that compiler for a whole variety of reasons. I'll bet I'm not the only one! ;-) But the important thing to note is that neither of those compilers had been validated and they were very careful not to actually call themselves "Ada" directly to keep from violating the trademark. MDC -- ============================================================= Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - 1.800.555.3393 1015-116 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 http://www.quadruscorp.com/ m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m Visit my web site at: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin." -- Allan Meltzer, Economist ============================================================= ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic @ 2000-01-15 0:00 ` David Starner 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 0 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: David Starner @ 2000-01-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 11:22:20 -0800, Marin D. Condic <mcondic-nospam@quadruscorp.com> wrote: >I don't think I've seen anything in recent years that actually provided >syntactic extensions to the language. GNAT has "with type" to allow two types to reference each other without being in the same package. That's only enabled with -gnatX so it's not a big deal. -- David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org If you wish to strive for peace of soul then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire. -- Friedrich Nietzsche ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-15 0:00 ` David Starner @ 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Keith Willshaw 0 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Marin D. Condic @ 2000-01-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) David Starner wrote: > GNAT has "with type" to allow two types to reference each other without being > in the same package. That's only enabled with -gnatX so it's not a big deal. > -- Thus demonstrating that I am not a knower-of-all once again! ;-) As you point out, you have to throw a switch to make it happen. The compiler still has a mode in which it will accept only standard constructs, so if portability is your concern, you just always use that mode. I think that's one of the best benefits of a validated compiler with respect to portability. Go ahead and add features if you like, but I can always verify that my code adheres to only standard features if that is important to me. MDC -- ============================================================= Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - 1.800.555.3393 1015-116 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 http://www.quadruscorp.com/ m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m Visit my web site at: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin." -- Allan Meltzer, Economist ============================================================= ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic @ 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Keith Willshaw 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Paul J. Adam 2000-01-18 0:00 ` Tarjei T. Jensen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Keith Willshaw @ 2000-01-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Marin D. Condic wrote in message <38816E17.8B24C111@quadruscorp.com>... >David Starner wrote: >> GNAT has "with type" to allow two types to reference each other without being >> in the same package. That's only enabled with -gnatX so it's not a big deal. >> -- >Thus demonstrating that I am not a knower-of-all once again! ;-) > >As you point out, you have to throw a switch to make it happen. The >compiler still has a mode in which it will accept only standard >constructs, so if portability is your concern, you just always use that >mode. I think that's one of the best benefits of a validated compiler >with respect to portability. Go ahead and add features if you like, but >I can always verify that my code adheres to only standard features if >that is important to me. > >MDC >-- The trouble is too many people never think about it. The people that wrote the DEC Fortran that I got stuck with told me they couldn't imagine why they would ever move off VAX, Theywere the most cost effective machines to do it on. Most of our customers are now on $1500 PC's and we are back to Standard Fortran Keith ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Keith Willshaw @ 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Paul J. Adam 2000-01-16 0:00 ` John Keeney 2000-01-18 0:00 ` Tarjei T. Jensen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Paul J. Adam @ 2000-01-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <85sbv7$6ea$1@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>, Keith Willshaw <keith_willshaw@compuserve.com> writes >The people that wrote the DEC Fortran that I got stuck >with told me they couldn't imagine why they would ever >move off VAX, Theywere the most cost effective machines to >do it on. > >Most of our customers are now on $1500 PC's and we >are back to Standard Fortran I remember writing Fortran 77 code on a PDP 11/70... (took two hours to compile and link 25K of code) I'm getting old and I'm not even thirty yet :) -- There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and praiseworthy... Paul J. Adam paul@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Paul J. Adam @ 2000-01-16 0:00 ` John Keeney 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Paul J. Adam 0 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: John Keeney @ 2000-01-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Paul J. Adam <Paul@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:QDSgmSAAWbg4Ewqy@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk... > In article <85sbv7$6ea$1@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>, > Keith Willshaw <keith_willshaw@compuserve.com> writes > >The people that wrote the DEC Fortran that I got stuck > >with told me they couldn't imagine why they would ever > >move off VAX, Theywere the most cost effective machines to > >do it on. > > > >Most of our customers are now on $1500 PC's and we > >are back to Standard Fortran > > I remember writing Fortran 77 code on a PDP 11/70... (took two > hours to compile and link 25K of code) > > I'm getting old and I'm not even thirty yet :) You're not even thirty and you were working with 25K programs on an 11/70? Doing what in God's name? The last 11/70 I used was VERY early '80s and ten years later I knew people who they were being given to in exchange for hauling them off. Turned down one myself about '94. > -- > There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and > praiseworthy... > > Paul J. Adam paul@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-16 0:00 ` John Keeney @ 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Paul J. Adam 0 siblings, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Paul J. Adam @ 2000-01-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <38827ab1@news.iglou.com>, John Keeney <jdkeeney@iglou.com> writes >Paul J. Adam <Paul@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >> I remember writing Fortran 77 code on a PDP 11/70... (took two >> hours to compile and link 25K of code) >> >> I'm getting old and I'm not even thirty yet :) > >You're not even thirty and you were working with 25K programs on an 11/70? >Doing what in God's name? Modelling weapon and countermeasure launches from a submarine. >The last 11/70 I used was VERY early '80s and ten years later I knew people >who they were being given to in exchange for hauling them off. Turned >down >one myself about '94. Yep. This was 1988 and the 11/70 was available, while the VAX was overloaded, so as junior team member I got volunteered to use the PDP. -- There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and praiseworthy... Paul J. Adam paul@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Keith Willshaw 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Paul J. Adam @ 2000-01-18 0:00 ` Tarjei T. Jensen 2000-01-18 0:00 ` Keith WIllshaw 1 sibling, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Tarjei T. Jensen @ 2000-01-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Keith Willshaw >The trouble is too many people never think about it. > >The people that wrote the DEC Fortran that I got stuck >with told me they couldn't imagine why they would ever >move off VAX, Theywere the most cost effective machines to >do it on. > >Most of our customers are now on $1500 PC's and we >are back to Standard Fortran I worked for a company that had a lot of DEC fortran code. They solved the problem by buying compilers with DEC fortran extensions. Perhaps your people choose the wrong extensions :-) Greetings, ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-18 0:00 ` Tarjei T. Jensen @ 2000-01-18 0:00 ` Keith WIllshaw 2000-01-25 0:00 ` Stefan Skoglund 0 siblings, 1 reply; 71+ messages in thread From: Keith WIllshaw @ 2000-01-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Tarjei T. Jensen <tarjei.jensen@kvaerner.com> wrote in message news:861m2m$19d1@ftp.kvaerner.com... > > > > I worked for a company that had a lot of DEC fortran code. They solved the > problem by buying compilers with DEC fortran extensions. > > Perhaps your people choose the wrong extensions :-) > We liiked at that option and could have gone that way for NT but that only perpetuates the problem Anyway we support SG , SUN , HP , RS6000 , DEC Ultrix , NT and WIN9x It was better to bite the bullet and go back to Ansi Standard Fortran ( and we rewrote the Graphics stuff in C) Keith ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-18 0:00 ` Keith WIllshaw @ 2000-01-25 0:00 ` Stefan Skoglund 0 siblings, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Stefan Skoglund @ 2000-01-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Keith WIllshaw wrote: > We liiked at that option and could have gone that way for NT > but that only perpetuates the problem > > Anyway we support SG , SUN , HP , RS6000 , DEC Ultrix > , NT and WIN9x > > It was better to bite the bullet and go back to Ansi Standard > Fortran ( and we rewrote the Graphics stuff in C) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ How did you get that portable ? conditional makefiles ? or gnu autoconf ? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] 2000-01-12 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Bill Greene @ 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 1 sibling, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: Marin D. Condic @ 2000-01-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. > It has always been known that no language can ever be 100% platform transparent. Nobody who knew anything about language design ever expected that Ada (or any language) could meet such an objective. The objective was to minimize portability problems - much more likely to be achieved. I'm afraid I don't know about Data General building an Ada compiler and I don't know why they would be using a VAX instead of a Data General platform. But I do know that there are lots of "100% compliant" Ada compilers available if, by compliant, you mean a compiler that has run the Ada validation suite and been given a certificate stating that it has met the standard. You may be setting up a strawman here and then knocking him down. I don't think anybody had any illusions about Ada being perfect in every way. Certainly Ada had its problems in the early days because of inefficient implementations, lack of understanding and acceptance by its intended market and so on. But things have improved very considerably since the first standard was issued and it is successfully used in a wide variety of applications where it does, in fact, reduce errors, improve productivity and enhance portability. If there is some other language out there which is 100% platform transparent and has no flaws at all, I'd sure like to hear about it. But in the mean time, I think Ada does a better job than any other language I know of for avionics and other complex systems with high reliability requirements. If you have a better alternative, please mention what it is. MDC -- ============================================================= Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - 1.800.555.3393 1015-116 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 http://www.quadruscorp.com/ m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m Visit my web site at: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin." -- Allan Meltzer, Economist ============================================================= ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <sBvg4.3142$iy5.199834@typ12.deja.bcandid.com>]
* Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] [not found] <sBvg4.3142$iy5.199834@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> @ 2000-01-17 0:00 ` tmoran 0 siblings, 0 replies; 71+ messages in thread From: tmoran @ 2000-01-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) >Anyone that has ever done any serious programming under multiple platforms >knows exactly what I mean by "extended instruction set". Do you mean the XFC instruction, generating a fault to help implement user-written "instructions"? Did some DEC Ada compiler rely on some such "extended instructions"? Why is that worse than any other compiler on any other machine exploiting particular capabilities of the target hardware? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 71+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2000-01-31 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 71+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2000-01-12 0:00 [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] Rocky 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 2000-01-12 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Bill Greene [not found] ` <Ft6f4.2216$iy5.114812@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Bill Greene 2000-01-12 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Bill Greene [not found] ` <3d8f4.2267$iy5.117569@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> 2000-01-12 0:00 ` Bill Greene 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 2000-01-13 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-01-13 0:00 ` Jeff Carter [not found] ` <yxof4.2433$iy5.130692@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Tarjei T. Jensen 2000-01-13 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-13 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 2000-01-12 0:00 ` David Tannen 2000-01-13 0:00 ` Harry Andreas 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Ed Falis 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Bill Greene 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Keith Willshaw 2000-01-15 0:00 ` K. Devlin 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Keith Willshaw 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Gautier [not found] ` <38821915.B56815F8@maths.unine.ch> [not found] ` <85t9oa$867$1@ssauraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com> 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Gautier 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Keith Willshaw [not found] ` <oHcg4.2964$iy5.180009@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 2000-01-16 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-16 0:00 ` David Starner 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Gautier 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 2000-01-17 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Keith Thompson 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Gautier 2000-01-17 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Bill Greene 2000-01-19 0:00 ` Robert S. White 2000-01-19 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-01-19 0:00 ` Robert S. White 2000-01-25 0:00 ` Stefan Skoglund 2000-01-25 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle 2000-01-26 0:00 ` Mark Lundquist 2000-01-26 0:00 ` Samuel T. Harris 2000-01-17 0:00 ` K. Devlin 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Chris Douglas 2000-01-18 0:00 ` P. S. Norby [not found] ` <QHvg4.3143$iy5.200225@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Stuart Palin 2000-01-17 0:00 ` jtarver 2000-01-17 0:00 ` David Tannen 2000-01-18 0:00 ` K. Devlin 2000-01-17 0:00 ` David Gillon 2000-01-17 0:00 ` David Starner 2000-01-26 0:00 ` Mark Lundquist 2000-01-18 0:00 ` K. Devlin 2000-01-18 0:00 ` Ed Falis 2000-01-18 0:00 ` Ted Dennison 2000-01-31 0:00 ` Roga Danar 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 2000-01-15 0:00 ` David Starner 2000-01-15 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Keith Willshaw 2000-01-16 0:00 ` Paul J. Adam 2000-01-16 0:00 ` John Keeney 2000-01-17 0:00 ` Paul J. Adam 2000-01-18 0:00 ` Tarjei T. Jensen 2000-01-18 0:00 ` Keith WIllshaw 2000-01-25 0:00 ` Stefan Skoglund 2000-01-14 0:00 ` Marin D. Condic [not found] <sBvg4.3142$iy5.199834@typ12.deja.bcandid.com> 2000-01-17 0:00 ` tmoran
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox