Re: Problem space (Re: Using Ada for device drivers? (Was: the Adamandate...))

[Craig Carey <research@ijs.co.nz>]

On Mon, 12 May 2003 05:31:30 +0400 (MSD), "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch"
  <aek@vib.usr.pu.ru> wrote:

>"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@attbi.com> wrote:
...
>
>Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
>Saint-Petersburg
>Russia

Hi Mr Kopilovitch. 

My Usenet client has displayed this message you sent, i.e. the first in
the thread, into an entirely new thread. The headers of the message
lack sufficient information to allow success to any client.

Just to have a bat at why Mr Kopilovitch's last message was incorrectly
threaded, I offer this hypothesis:

[1] A DOS Usenet client run under Wine is too dumb and old to allow
    messages to be sent (but it can receive them). I won't offer a
    details about the DOS Usenet client.
    A detail is that the http://www.rfc1149.net/ gateway system is
    resulting in fragmented threads and it is not a result of an
    evasion of censoring.

I quote from Mr Kopilovitch's first message; and I ask readers to swap
the words: "the problem area"; with the words "the newer Usenet client".
Here is the text now under consideration:

--------------
At Mon, 12 May 2003 05:31:30 +0400 (MSD), Alexandre E. Kopilovitch wrote:

   Subject: Problem space (Re: Using Ada for device drivers? (Was: the
    Ada mandate...))

>  But that truth should be also considered from the opposite direction:
>if you (your team) can't deal efficiently with problem space for any reason
>(most often because you either aren't familiar with the problem area
>[the newer Usenet client] ...) then you should not expect better
>perfomance using Ada.
--------------

That is implausible. Indeed it was true in a wide sense, then Ada 95 Code
optimizers that are not familiar with the larger picture, would not be
able to optimize Ada unoptimized Ada assembly code. It is the case that
the idea, "you or your group", can't be expanded to so that it includes
software implementing artificial intelligence (AI) of maybe any sort. Yet
the first author maintains Ada bindings to Prolog:

At 2002\09\04 01:21 +0400 Wednesday, Alexandre E. Kopilovitch wrote to
   Team-Ada (http://www.acm.org/archives/team-ada.html ):
>New release (0.2) of TAP (Thick Ada-Prolog) bindings replaced previous one
> at
>
>   http://www.tarkvara.com/tap
>


--
An excellent solution would be to close the e-mail to Usenet gateway.

I personally have had insufficient success with my private messages to the
users of the gateway in France that is causing many of these thread
fragmenting problems. Thread fragmenting at omp.lang.ada is done by a
quite small number of people who don't seem to have the robust explanation
that might be appropriate, once written to privately. There does not seem
to a factual basis for the idea that complaints should be private rather
than thoughout the split-off threads. It would be interesting to have
Mr Tardieu and maybe Mr Christopher Grein write in explaining the
rationale or whatever.