Re: Proving Correctness (was Java Portability)

["nicolas" <n.brunot@cadwin.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2340 bytes --]

"Stephen Leake" <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> a �crit dans le message
news: un15dgn63.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov...
> ok; you have one example of one library that is not compiler-portable.

The fact is that we were looking standard ones which are ...
This one was proposed, it is not ...

> That is a desirable goal. We are discussing how to get there. Clearly,
> the first version of a library might be compiler dependent. If the
> people developing the library want compiler independence, they have to
> put in some effort.

I don't think so, companies interested in Ada must put some effort to make
the language use viable.
For Ada vendors it's not an option, unless they drop Ada and make another
job.
For Ada users it's a matter of deciding wether using Ada or using more
popular languages. A totally different story.
You see the vendor-customer relationship in a completely false direction.

> Well, maybe its the least _you_ expect :). I have different
> expectations.

my expectations and yours have something in common.
They are not that important, whatever they are.
The question is to know if companies using Ada will go on that way or not.
And moreover if new companies are going to come to Ada.
Actually, the fact that Ada will still exist or not in 5 or 10 years is not
very important.
The only important thing is to have a good answer to this question, in order
to make the right decision about language choice.

> I agree. But that doesn't mean it's a point against Ada, in favor of
> Java or C++.

I think you take all that in a far too much religious way.
This is not the war of languages with good ones and villains.
This is just a matter of software developpers choosing their tools, like
someone choosing a srewdriver or a hammer
The screewdriver is everything but the ultimate goal of your construction.

> > If ACT does everything to force Ada world to be dependant of Gnat
compiler,
> > it is ACT's decision.
> Shades of Microsoft, don't you think? Works for them :).

In a slightly less successful way :-)
I wouldn't exchange 0.001 % of microsoft against 100% of ACT :-)

> Ok. How do we make that happen? ACT isn't going to do it without some
> monetary return; that's what businesses do.

You have several compiler vendors, a RM well defined.
Ada promotion is certainly not the matter of one single company.