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,c1983ae2deb642ab X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-28 17:00:35 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!kibo.news.demon.net!demon!psiuk-p2!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada -vs- GNAT Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 09:47:38 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3CEFCC05.16C30A69@adaworks.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1022593659 16834 136.170.200.133 (28 May 2002 13:47:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 May 2002 13:47:39 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24880 Date: 2002-05-28T13:47:39+00:00 List-Id: "Richard Riehle" wrote in message news:3CEFCC05.16C30A69@adaworks.com... > > When a Standard keeps a language from meeting its full potential, is that > a good thing. When we insist that no construct may be used that > is not in the standard, is that not like saying we abhor innovation. I This sounds like a possible argument for there being a "second tier" of "standard" for Ada - what I've been calling "Convention" for lack of any better term. There's nothing wrong with innovations coming from only one source but if it becomes clear that something is generally useful, there's a big advantage to having that feature done the same way for all implementations that decide to support it. (The advantage is for the end user - its a disadvantage to the vendor. :-) That's why I'd like to see things like libraries with a reference implementation that gain some widespread adoption - we get language extension and leverage in a semi-standard way without having to actually tinker with the ISO standard. > > So, it ACT deems it useful to add something as simply as attibutes to its > compiler to accomplish things not pre-determined by the standard, so > be it. This could be one of the features that differentiates their product > The language allows for vendor-specific attributes and pragmas, so in a sense, utilizing this capability is "Standard". To my way of thinking, having GNAT support its own extensions in this way is just fine - so long as the user is aware that this is not portable across all compilers. If you need portability, don't use these features or at least isolate them in some manner so its easy to change where needed. If you really want portability, you're going to have to do a lot more work than just worrying about compiler-specific features and you *will* have to sacrifice capabilities. So why sweat about it and try to eliminate all non-portabilities via standardization? > > Let's not be the kind of people for who innovation lasts -- and lasts -- and > lasts. > I vaguely remember a quote from someone to the effect that the greatest innovators in a field eventually become the biggest roadblock further innovation. Human nature I guess... MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com