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-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-28 03:53:13 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!west.cox.net!cox.net!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,misc.misc Subject: Re: Ada versus language-X and "getting real work done" (was): 64 bit addressing and OOP Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 06:52:04 -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.b5.0e X-Server-Date: 28 Feb 2003 11:53:12 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:59452 comp.object:58608 comp.lang.ada:34714 misc.misc:12219 Date: 2003-02-28T11:53:12+00:00 List-Id: If we assume for a moment that you are correct - that Ada was (at least partially) invented so that inter-process communication would be less error prone because of common data representation - then Ada is an abysmal failure. The Ada standard has almost nothing at all to say about the representation of data as it gets out of the program and it has gaping holes within the standard with respect to exact representations so big you could drive a truck through them. There is absolutely no reason to believe that if I wrote data with one Ada program on one target machine with one version of a compiler that it could be read back by another Ada program on a different target machine with a different compiler. Nothing in the standard even implies that this should work. Hence, if it *was* a goal, they never achieved 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:a3eaa964.0302271557.adba17e@posting.google.com... > > Your memory and mine differ rather profoundly on the issue, which as a > commissioned officer who was also employed hour-to-hour mostly as a > programmer up until 1981 I followed with rather intense interest at > the time in both the trade press and internal government documents. > > xanthian.