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: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,25d5234e7b6ca361 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-27 04:36:36 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!151.164.30.35!cyclone.swbell.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada versus language-X and "getting real work done" (was): 64 bit addressing and OOP Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 07:35:26 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: References: <3E4E8F8C.9C096985@adaworks.com> <9fa75d42.0302250710.5549baaf@posting.google.com> <3E5C7033.BD5DC462@adaworks.com> <9fa75d42.0302260618.7506cba7@posting.google.com> <3E5CF5C6.84822F57@adaworks.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.bf.93 X-Server-Date: 27 Feb 2003 12:36:30 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:59395 comp.object:58486 comp.lang.ada:34666 Date: 2003-02-27T12:36:30+00:00 List-Id: While I agree with much of this post, I've got to observe that communications between systems or programs is *not* the issue. (Nor was it a consideration when the DoD started down the path of Ada) Ada can no more guarantee that data representation is consistent between applications than anything else. Different compilers are free to implement primitive data types in any way they like provided they meet certain criteria. Two different versions of the same compiler might have different representations for the same data. Machine architectures differ. Communications mechanisms differ. A single programming language is *not* going to fix that. The biggest consideration for the DoD initially was that they would get out of spending money to support dozens or maybe even hundreds of different languages in the various programs they funded. They would get some transferability of skills from one project to the next and quit having to pay for the learning curve. They also wanted higher reliability and other noble objectives. Its just not the case that they expected to get consistency in inter-process communications as part of the bargain and if that *is* what they expected, they certainly didn't get it. MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds." -- H. Simpson ====================================================================== Kent Paul Dolan wrote in message news:a3eaa964.0302261422.4d166fa1@posting.google.com... > > It helps to remember the context. The DoD had, and has to > this day, a situation where battlefield computers programmed > in different languages couldn't talk to one another. A > couple of obvious results of this kind of situation are that > people die from friendly fire problems, and that people die > from corrupted transmissions. It was, and still is, > important that the computer software share a single > language, with that language's exact semantics for > primitives and user declared types, so that communication > succeeds and at least the people fighting on our side get to > claim they got killed by the enemy instead of friendly > forces or computer glitches. >