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: 115aec,f41f1f25333fa601
X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a3ca574fc2007430
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada and Automotive Industry
Date: 1996/11/12
Message-ID: <dewar.847807786@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 196012717
references: <1996Nov8.183051.21638@ole.cdac.com>
 <mheaney-ya023280001011961933060001@news.ni.net> <dewar.847730824@merv>
 <1996Nov11.215227.599@ole.cdac.com>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.realtime
Date: 1996-11-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


James said

"We talked to *all* major Ada compiler vendors.  Their implementation
of tasking was *always* insufficient.  We looked *very* hard.

You are the one with rusty memory.
"

Let's not slip and slide around here! I was talking specifically about
your specific claim that none of these compilers supported preemptive
tasking. This is one of the few specific points you made, and it is 
plain wrong.

When you slip back into your general FUD mode ("always insufficient") it
is of course impossible to provide refutation. After all sufficiency may
depend on the competence or incompetence of the evaluator for example.