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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,36a29c2860aff686 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!85.214.198.2.MISMATCH!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Warren Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Properties Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 21:55:26 +0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <3b84c8e7-1a51-4a7c-9646-119f1fc51478@s4g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <4pnv7nl4cdui$.1n28i7lqk4mek$.dlg@40tude.net> <1k7367gtebsgm$.18auo6u3nfg34.dlg@40tude.net> <618677c8-a44f-443e-9052-a94fb48c999a@s4g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <4287748c-0962-4cd2-a36b-9dd7113267a6@21g2000prv.googlegroups.com> Injection-Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 21:55:26 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx03.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9f8M0iN5t54V+4DF/iqO8g"; logging-data="13304"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tNDnnOg2d0wly+caqFuYzwJ5FTk9yG4A=" User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25 X-Face: &6@]C2>ZS=NM|HE-^zWuryN#Z/2_.s9E|G&~DRi|sav9{E}XQJb*\_>=a5"q]\%A;5}LKP][1mA{gZ,Q!j Cancel-Lock: sha1:x02O2vEToNPu9mOqNPB1JI4KNoA= Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:16730 Date: 2010-12-02T21:55:26+00:00 List-Id: Jeffrey Carter expounded in news:id93pc$qf9$1@tornado.tornevall.net: > Shark8 wrote: >> >> But then, prior to Unix, O/S's were usually steeped in >> assembler language (like OS/2 for a modern example). C >> has been a big improvement in that regard. > > OS/2 "prior to Unix"? Unix dates from ~1970, OS/2 the > 1980s. Yes. I never said _anything_ about OS/2 predating Unix. What I did say was that OS/2 was as a modern example of an asm version of an O/S. Sheesh. Didn't you read the word "modern"? > What I find funny is that the alternatives to Windows are > all versions of Unix. Unix is hardly perfect; you'd think > we'd have come up with something better by now. Agreed that Unix has imprefections but at least it was "designed" with some peer review. MS stuff just gets "marketing review" and pushed out the door with a "look what we can do?" approach. Everyone told them ActiveX over the internet was a bad idea. It tooks years for that lesson to sink in. It would be interesting to know more about what NT was designed like, before MS bastardized it, to make it compatible with prior Windows APIs. I've never worked with VMS, but folks that have seem to have really liked it. More recently, I've personally liked the idea of an Ada mach kernel myself, and even did some work on one once (RTMK I think it was). But I'm too old to follow through on something that huge. That is a Linux type of project in need of a young university grad with energy and enthusiasm. Warren