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: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-14 01:49:53 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!dialin-145-254-044-107.arcor-ip.NET!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:49:40 +0200 Organization: At home Message-ID: References: Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin-145-254-044-107.arcor-ip.net (145.254.44.107) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1081932592 2293558 I 145.254.44.107 ([77047]) User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7075 Date: 2004-04-14T10:49:40+02:00 List-Id: Alexander E. Kopilovich wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> > As for your statement that VMS could be implemented on any platform, >> > this is simply false. For example, do you really think that VMS could >> > be implemented on early IBM PC (with 8086, 640 Kb memory and 5-10 Mb >> > disk)? Or, 20 years later, on Palm handhelds? >> >> To your knowledge, I worked under RSX-11M running on a machine, which had >> 256K RAM, 2 x 1.5Mb HD disks and sort of 0.3MHz. That machine supported 2 >> interactive users. > > No problem with that, assuming that your disks weren't fixed (so you may > change cassetes), you had technicians not far away from the computer, and > your applications were of particular domain (one of those domains > targetted by PDP-11). I developed (well, I was the team leader of a small > team) software for taxi call center on and for very similar machine (disks > became bigger after some time), and it was running successfully for > several years (about 10-15 terminals active in peak periods - that time > there was only one taxi call center for 5-million Leningrad). > > But I asked you not about RSX-11M, and even not about RSX-11M-PLUS, but > about VMS. And not on PDP-11 (which, after all, had memory dispatcher, and > even I-D space for some models), but on early IBM PC or Palm handhelds. I'd consider RSX and PDP compatible as a natural opposition to MS-DOS and IBM PC. So it is unfair to compare the latter with VAX/VMS. However I remember a VAX compatible under VMS have 1-2Mb and 2x24MB disks. It supported 6 users. >> Actually, MACRO-11 >> (PDP/VAX assembler) was a higher level language than C. I believe that >> PDP-11 instruction set was rewarded in a contest as the best one. > > I guess that you was raised as a programmer on PDP-11. What you just said > is quite typical to programmers for whom PDP-11 was first computer to > which they obtain real access. My impression was quite different, as I > compared Macro-11 with IBM Assembler H. No I started with IBM 360/70, TSO and some other interactive system for IBM, which name I cannot recall. Then switched to PDP. I knew no programmer who liked IBM assembler. You should a rare exception. >> As for DEC C and DEC Ada >> they were definitively the best at that time. > > Perhaps. As far as I know IBM did not develop own compilers for this > languages that time, so there were no competitors (in compilers) of equal > or bigger weight. There was a disgusting C compiler for Sun workstations. There was one, I guess from Motorola, no less bad. There were first GCC attempts. >> As I said, the problem is that the marked, beloved or not, does not work >> well for software. > > Hm, but for what is works better? For science? For fims? For literature? You have admitted that there is a problem. >> This is the only reason why even less beloved government >> should intervene. Because software is essential to the future of >> humankind. > > So you think (applying the same logic) that government should intervene in > science, Doesn't it? Or do you think that space program is sponsored by Microsoft? > in some arts Who pays for those museums and theatres? If you want to check what kind of art the market selects turn on MTV. > and all other matters which we (or it) find > essential to humankind. By the way, from where you know about the future > of humankind? Did you have a revelation? No, I just have an experience that Ada is better than C++. >> >> And MS in its early days was heavyweight? >> > >> > MS in its early days was fully backed by IBM, didn't you know? >> >> You mean that IBM invested in MS? > > It is hard to believe that you know absolutely nothing about early story > of MS-DOS. Windows and OS/2. But if it so then I'm not going to tell you > that story - it is too well-known, just consult the Net. Then you should probably know that OS/2 was better than Windows. How your theory would explain its fault? >> >> > There are much more important issues in the case. For >> >> > example, will be car vendors required to publish full sources of the >> >> > software used in their cars? >> >> >> >> What for? To laugh at? >> > >> > There are enough people in the world who know cars and at the same have >> > some programmer skills. Some of them may become interested in studying >> > those sources (of their own car's software, for example). It may >> > constitute very significant resource for finding remaining bugs and >> > glitches. >> >> So the system of that complexity should be controlled by a crowd of >> hobbists? > > Controlled? Is GNAT controlled by the crowd of hobbyists who have an easy > opportunity to read its sources? > > But anyway, in the case of cars, I'd like to tell you that in that crowd > of hobbyists, easily can happen people who are more skilled in software, > and even in complex software, than the software engineering personnel that > developed the car's software. Those skilled people may have an interesting > reason to look at the sources: they may own the car. Ah, now I have understand your scientical theory of how it should be done. Ignorant, uneducated personnel will write rubbish being well paid for that. Highly qualified people in their spare time (after a day of sweeping streets, I suppose) will analyse their work for free. The rest is still a bit in clouds. Should they send their analysis to the managers? I am afraid that if that would distract managers from playing golf, they could get angry. > Just as Boeing > engineer may become interested in some construction details of a small > piston single airplane, which he owns. Imagine that, say, a Cisco engineer > or former DEC engineer becomes suspecting that some sporadic trouble in > his own car is caused by a software glitch. Yes, a sporadic ignition of the air bag caused by the pre-crash detection system fault at the speed of 180 km/h on the highway. > Then, there are graduate > students (EE and CS), and some part of them are already better skilled > then some part of that car software development personnel - and they also > often own cars. It seems that you do not understand the complexity of the system. It cannot be analyzed afterwards. To create such a system you have do it in the framework of a very strict development procedure. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de