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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,be23df8e7e275d73 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-06 07:16:40 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!193.251.151.101!opentransit.net!wanadoo.fr!proxad.net!feeder2-1.proxad.net!nnrp6.proxad.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "nicolas" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <9jrt62$38t$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B619A6D.5DD6E782@home.com> <3B6636BA.96FD8348@home.com> <9kb3ub$hdo$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <9kchn1$lng$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <9kea9a$lsc$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9keduf$qvc$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <9kelv1$riq$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> Subject: Re: Proving Correctness (was Java Portability) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 14:16:39 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.101.131.241 X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net X-Trace: nnrp6.proxad.net 997107399 195.101.131.241 (Mon, 06 Aug 2001 16:16:39 CEST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 16:16:39 CEST Organization: Guest of ProXad - France Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11355 Date: 2001-08-06T14:16:39+00:00 List-Id: "Pascal Obry" a �crit dans le message news: ulmkxuy80.fsf@wanadoo.fr... > Sorry but I'm very upset by your mail. If nobody does the job the job wont > gets done that it ! I'll start to reply your last remark. There is absolutely no attack about this XML library. It's great to have it for students and Gnat users. But we were talking about standard and portable libraries designed to be independant of compilers. This is what Ada is designed for. This is about what Ada users are giving lessons to everybody. George gave me this XML library as an example to show that this type of library is available. This is not the case. We don't use Gnat because Gnat doesn't satisfy our requirements. That's our problem. That doesn't mean Gnat is a bad product, no product is perfect, and no product can satisfy everybody. Gnat, especially public version, is great for students, for anybody who wants to try Ada, and certainly for professionals who made Gnat choice. A lot of people are using others compilers than Gnat, a lot of people work with Windows. You definitely cannot take this XML library example to show that standard portable libraries are available for Ada users. > No. Just grab the library and changes it to be whatever-compiler > compatible. You have the source, use them... No, I shouldn't have to do that, Anyway, Gnat.spitbol is not available for other compilers, and I don't have to spend my time retrieving it and trying to adapt it to my compiler. It's ok for Ada fans ready to spend more time on their favourite language than the time they would spend on a language they don't like. This is not ok for people considering languages as tools, who choose the most convenient one for their needs. It's a nonsense to say to Ada programmers "I made my own specific library, adapt it yourself if you don't want to use my compiler" This is exactly what people who choose Ada don't want to hear, and they are right about that. > Right. So ask you vendor to adapt an Open Source component or sell an > equivalent component. All the thread is about the fact that this is not an option and goes against Ada promotion Ada is designed to write code as much as possible independant from platforms and compilers. An XML library has nothing specific to a platform or a compiler. You can develop one with code totally independant of the compiler, and there is no reason to do otherwise. You may ask why we didn't develop that ourseleves : it is for very simple reasons. - We are not paid for that - Java does it much better. - When we are not working, we are more interested in others things in life than playing with computers > I don't see a problem with Aonix, Rational taking the XML library, adapt it to > their compiler and release the result as an Open Source add-on for their > compiler. It's clear to me that a standard library shouldn't have to be adapted to each compiler. We have more than 1 million lines of Ada code and are very careful to have them compiler independant. That's the least you can expect from an Ada library. Ada language is designed to be platform and compiler independant. If Ada users starts to release such basic libraries specific to one compiler or one platform, the only thing we do is to prove to others languages users that we are unable to apply what we are trying to promote. > > Sax relies on Gnat specific packages. > So why ? (see above). XML has been done by an Ada fan working for ACT. That's > not a big surprise. I don't understand why you are so upset ? I am not upset, Georges told me I should be satisfied with this XML library. I am not satisfied because we don't use Gnat for our software releases, and because libraries tied to one compiler without any valid reason, go against Ada promotion. The only consequence is that I don't use it. No big deal ... > And BTW, it is no fair to be upset by something that has been done. Why are > you not upset by the fact that these components have not been ported by you > Ada vendor for their compilers ? Once again I'm not upset about anything I strongly believe that the lack of standard available library you can use 'as it is' without any modification, whatever compiler you use, goes against Ada rationale ... > Possible, but not something that should be done by ACT for obvious reason :) I don't care who should do it .... I'm a user and like any other user I choose the best tool available for my needs. If ACT does everything to force Ada world to be dependant of Gnat compiler, it is ACT's decision. But I think it could kill Ada, and therefore ACT ... > Let me add that we have tried in AWS to be compiler independant (see > AWS.OS_Lib) but since 2 or 3 releases this is not true anymore. I don't have > the time to try on all available compilers, the GNAT library is so nice that I > just can't bypass it (GNAT.Regexp for example). So yes now AWS is mostly > working with GNAT... But I'd love to see others porting some stuff to be able > to avoid this dependences :) I think it's a dead-end if everybody does his own job specific for his own tools, and wait for others to adapt it for others tools. This shows all the limitations of the process. We are giving to others languages users, all what they need, to be convinced that Ada users are themselves unable to stick to what they promote. If you can't bypass GNAT.Regexp, obviously GNAT.Regexp should be in the set of standard libraries, it shouldn't be named GNAT, and should be available as it is for any compiler. Once again Ada users give strong lessons to the rest of the world, and do exactly the opposite in practice ...