Re: Asynchronous Transfer of Control

[jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <1996Oct21.180838.1@eisner> kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) writes:

> In article <dewar.845917922@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
> 
> > In fact, the ruling of the AVO, after much discussion, was precisely that
> > this test (the one requiring 31 priority levels) could indeed be ruled
> > inapplicable for TSP, so they can claim quite rightly that their validation
> > includes validation for the real time annex as well as the core.
> 
> If the decision had been otherwise, it seems to me the validation
> process would have become a matter of rating operating systems
> rather than compilers.  That does not serve the needs of those
> who have already chosen an operating system and now must choose
> a compiler for it.  There are few ways to discourage a would be
> Ada project so effective as saying "Well, _real_ Ada cannot be
> done on the operating system you have chosen."  CPM and RSTS
> advocates should get that brush-off, but not Windows NT fans.
> The world cares a lot more about Windows NT than Ada (this month).

Absolutely.  Good thing this insanity was nipped in the bud.

I think Robert put it best when he said that if this had not been approved
and no compiler could have validated D on Win/NT, then the response would
have been, 

"Gee, I thought I could use real Ada on NT for real-time - guess not.
Well, I'm not changing from NT (that's fer sure), so it looks like I
just won't be using Ada".

Given the "not validated => use C++" insanity/stupidity/excuse, this
seems pretty obvious...

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com