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: 103376,5a05d88755a62a0e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Asynchronous Transfer of Control Date: 1996/10/26 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 192168817 references: <32656457.1A76@csehp1.mdc.com> <54fnb1$5m7@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us> <1996Oct21.180838.1@eisner> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Larry says "If the decision had been otherwise, it seems to me the validation process would have become a matter of rating operating systems rather than compilers. That does not serve the needs of those who have already chosen an operating system and now must choose a compiler for it. There are few ways to discourage a would be Ada project so effective as saying "Well, _real_ Ada cannot be done on the operating system you have chosen." CPM and RSTS advocates should get that brush-off, but not Windows NT fans. The world cares a lot more about Windows NT than Ada (this month)." Yes, indeed, however, I hope everyone realizes that there is a technical issue here. In particular, rate monotonic scheduling is very severely rstricted as a usable technique with only seven levels of priority, so as always, we are in buyer beware territory.