From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-15 07:25:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nwrdny02.gnilink.net.POSTED!0f19ed38!not-for-mail From: "Frank J. Lhota" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 14:25:58 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.203.223.83 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny02.gnilink.net 1082039158 151.203.223.83 (Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:25:58 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:25:58 EDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7139 Date: 2004-04-15T14:25:58+00:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message news:c5itve$25vpm$3@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de... > Then you should probably know that OS/2 was better than Windows. How your > theory would explain its fault? I worked on a project using OS/2 1.1. Granted, this was before the PM, but one could not help but be impressed with some of the features of OS/2, including: - True multi-tasking (i. e. not the kind that depended on applications periodically calling Yield); - Multi-threading (not supported in Windows until NT / 95 ); and - File system that supported longer file names (not just the DOS 8+3 convention). One could easily argue that OS/2 with PM is technically superior to the DOS with Windows 3.x. The problem with OS/2 is that it had a few crucial faults which prevented it from gaining wider acceptance. The original versions were buggy. I certainly had my share of problems with version 1.1, although things were more stable in version 1.2 and 1.3. Unfortunately, it can be very hard to overcome a bad first impression. As noted many times before, the memory requirements were a deal killer for many potential customers. At the time of its release, memory was several magnitudes more expensive than it is today. An organization moving to OS/2 would not only have to buy a license for the OS for each machine; they would also have to spend several times that amount for adding a memory card to each upgraded system. You would have to prove big productivity gains to make the case for this upgrade. To support legacy applications, OS/2 offered a DOS compatibility box. If you did the INT 21H call to get the DOS version, the compatibility box would return version 10.0! There were some popular DOS applications, however, that did not run in the OS/2 DOS box. This made the migration to OS/2 even less appealing. Upgraders ran the risk that they could not continue using their current applications, and hence would have to buy new software, train their personnel on the use of the new software, and deal with revising old data files to be processed by the new software - not to mention any data compatibility problems that would arise if you wanted to NOT upgrade the OS on some of your systems. Not an appealing proposition. A big mistake that MS and IBM made at the time is that they did not do enough to encourage third-part application development. They charged a bloody fortune for the OS/2 SDK, causing many developers to take a "wait and see" approach to doing an OS/2 project. The OS debuted with few native applications, and a good portion of them were not very good. (There was, however, a very nice OS/2 version of the Brief editor. It is a pity that Software Solutions did not profit from this). There was a similar issue with the DDK, and for a long time OS/2 lacked printer drivers for some of the more popular printers. I knew of OS/2 shops that actually set up their machines in dual boot mode, so they could edit their work in OS/2, then reboot to DOS when they needed to print! Let's face it: most users do not want an OS. They want to run applications, and they get an OS as a means for doing this. Between the problems with the DOS box and the lack of native applications and drivers, OS/2 was a hard sell, in spite of the fact that it was technically superior to DOS / Win 3.x. Bringing this back to Ada, it is not sufficient for Ada to be a technically superior language. There are certain, practical requirements for Ada to be an appealing tool for new development. Ada 0x needs to address these requirements, for otherwise Ada could suffer the same tragic fate as OS/2.