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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8a402d78988bdf2b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-18 06:25:56 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!dialin-145-254-039-062.arcor-ip.NET!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: [announcement] SYSAPI and SYSSVC for Windows Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:32:07 +0100 Organization: At home Message-ID: References: Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin-145-254-039-062.arcor-ip.net (145.254.39.62) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1071757555 7454158 145.254.39.62 ([77047]) User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3534 Date: 2003-12-18T15:32:07+01:00 List-Id: Ekkehard Morgenstern wrote: > "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote: >> Try to install Windows over network! > > There are toolkits supplied by Microsoft to permit remote installing. > If you know how to use them, it's no big deal. > >> It is also amusing to install NT 4.0 on a relatively modern box. You will >> have a lot of fancy blue screens. > > Windows NT 4.0 is an anachronism. It is more stable than 2k/XP, thank to absence of plug'n'pray, I suppose. Multitasking is also better under NT, at least it is more predictable. So many of our customers keep sticking to NT. And honestly, I can hardly remember anything really new in OS API... > Microsoft doesn't support it anymore, > either. Even Windows 2000 is outdated. Windows XP is the way to go, it > does not only include all of Windows 2000 but also all of Windows NT (even > the OS/2 1.3 and POSIX subsystems exist in XP). As well as quick basic... >> Well, an OO OS written in Ada sounds good. However, it would be rather >> difficult to do in a clear way without multiple inheritance and dispatch, >> full blown ADT, tagged tasks and protected types, light-weight smart >> pointers, reasonable sreaming and memory pools support. Ada just has >> started to catch it, but it has a long way to go. > > Ada 95 just has a different way of doing things. There is no different way to do things I mentioned. There are only more or less nasty work-arounds. It is OK for 80% of applications, but for an OS, using work-arounds in API is the worst thing I can imagine. Nobody needs one more "adux" or "adows". We need a completely new OS. Scalable from embedded to mainframe, from real-time to time-sharing etc, and with an OO API. So if ADT and OO with all their bells and whistles are not supported by a language (and presently there is no one), it is would be a great mistake to make the OS API OO. > If you take your time to > understand them, you can use them effectively as well. > > I bet the Ada 20xx standard that is in the works will add even more > interesting stuff to the language. I bet it will not change the situation. The time of a big cut is yet to come. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de