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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: C++ Standardization (was: Once again, Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation) Date: 1996/10/11 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 188874648 references: <01bbb57f$7fb59020$72663389@billn.logicon.com> <325BC3B3.41C6@hso.link.com> <325BED6A.63F4@itg-sepg.logicon.com> <325EB65B.132F@thomsoft.com> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Gee, I thought the Annexes were OPTIONAL components of validated compilers, not that compilers without the annexes were SUBSET(!!!) (implied "NOT REALLY FULL Ada 95") compilers." Of course it is definitely the case that the annexes are optional, in the same sense that the optional modules of COBOL, e.g. the Report Generator, are optional. So a compiler that does not implement all the features of the language is still meeting the conformance requirements, just as would be the case with COBOL. No one is saying that such an implementation is not a valid Ada 95 implementation. By subset, I simply meant a subset of the full language capabilities in the RM. There is nothing wrong with subsetting the language by leaving out the annexes if the application does not need the full language! I would certainly think that most people would think that "full language" meant everything in the RM, but you can use any term any way you want! Certainly for us, full language *does* mean all the capabilities in the RM. Don't you think you ought to be a little more careful about what you're writing between the lines? Or should we start slinging mud about the IDE capabilities of GNAT on various platforms as so mehow making it not a "real" Ada 95 compiler? Seems of simiar relevance and bogosity. How about lowering the BS level? Well since the idea of optional sections is new in Ada 95, I think it is important that everyone understand the issues here. TO me it is obfuscatory to claim you implement the full language and leave out important capabilities. Yes, these capabilities are optional from a formal point of view, e.g. for validation, but if you need the capabilities, then they are definitely not optional. As for "mud" slinging, the TSP salesfolks definitely emphasize what they feel is their superior IDE capabilities, and I don't think of it as mud at all. It's perfectly natural that different companies stress different aspects, and emphasize them. That's what competition is all about! In fact we regard the open GNAT environment as having advantages over IDE's for many people, since it is much easier to put together the tool set you want from standard tools. But that's something users have to decide for themselves! Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies.