Re: Java portability

[Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <9jrcmm$mc0$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>, Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> writes:
> nicolas <n.brunot@cadwin.com> wrote:
> : "Georg Bauhaus" <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> a ?crit dans le message
> : news: 9jp5dc$e2b$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de...
> 
> : If there is a good way to access Java through Ada, which doesn't make you
> : dependant of just one vendor, why not ?

There was no international standard for Java at the time the Ada95
standard was developed.  In fact, the only guidance on what constitutes
"Java" still comes from just one vendor (Sun), doesn't it ?

Of course, that is not the only consideration that went into Ada95,
since there is no binding to Pascal, and Pascal has had an international
standard for many years.

> : If it's easier to write in Java directly, why spending time in useless
> : lobbying and complicated or not portable interfaces ?

Typically those who adopt Ada are interested in "more correct" and
"easier to maintain" rather than "easier to write".

> May I suggest that you try to answer these questions?

I was not the one who posted them, but since your message was posted
rather than sent in email, I presume the invitation to answer was
open to anyone.