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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-05 05:30:44 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!syros.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-ham1.dfn.de!news.uni-hamburg.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail From: Georg Bauhaus Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc Subject: Re: Using Ada for device drivers? Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:30:41 +0000 (UTC) Organization: GMUGHDU Message-ID: References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304240446.493ca906@posting.google.com> <3EA7E0E3.8020407@crs4.it> <9fa75d42.0304240950.45114a39@posting.google.com> <4a885870.0304291909.300765f@posting.google.com> <416273D61ACF7FEF.82C1D1AC17296926.FF0BFD4934A03813@lp.airnews.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1052137841 17337 134.91.1.15 (5 May 2003 12:30:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 12:30:41 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00 (9000/831)) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:63108 comp.object:62750 comp.lang.ada:36968 misc.misc:13946 Date: 2003-05-05T12:30:41+00:00 List-Id: In comp.lang.ada Hyman Rosen wrote: : Georg Bauhaus wrote: :> Answer: There is no trace of "distribution", not even of concurrency, :> in C. I wonder how that distinct feature of Ada vs C can be :> discarded, economically. : Because people have in fact written multithreaded and distributed : programs in C and in C++, so it's not exactly a mystery how to do : it. Because people have done something means what? Because people have not done something means what? Q: with ease, at what cost, portably, with predictable outcome? I'll concede that not every multihreaded and distributed program needs to be portable to be economically worth something. Does that mean anything in a general language comparison? : Furthermore, that Ada 95 had to come up with a new concurrency : mechanism (protected objects) is evidence that people were unhappy : with the facilities available in Ada 83, at least for some uses. That is easy to say, as there have been few alternatives if you wanted tasking as part of a pratically portable, language. Am I wrong? : One could then make an argument against Ada by asking whether it : is certain that Ada got it right this time. It is made, prominently, and for different reasons, by Bertrand Meyer in OOSC2; he now has, in his position of professor at ETH Zuerich, asked for collaborators to get concurrency right in Eiffel one could say. It has been there for some time, though not really... Georg