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,dd4586b9dd51c602
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: general-purpose vs. domain-specific programming languages
Date: 1998/01/10
Message-ID: <dewar.884411576@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 314560313
References: <98010512040396@psavax.pwfl.com> <692v45$cpi@top.mitre.org>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 884411807 7951 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-01-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Mike says

<<Right now backwards compatibility has to be maintained with Ada-83
because Ada-83 compilers are the only ones that have correct
implementations on DOS, such as Alsys. If gnat could be fixed
on DOS, just to the point where it does what Alsys did, then
the backwards compatibility issue goes away. That is a big
drag on the free development community.
>>

We see a vanishing demand for DOS, virtually everyone is switching
to Win95. Yes, I quite understand that Mike blows this trumpet loudly,
but few answer the call at this stage.

Mike, if you think it is so important to bring the DOS port up to 
date, why not do it.

I find the allegation that it is worth maintaining Ada 83 compatibility
JUST because of DOS very weak, not at all convincing.

Actually I find it telling that no one has bothered to bring the DOS
port up to date. It is certainly not that difficult and would not take
that much time (here at ACT, we don't find it worth spending even a little
time on, since there is just zero interest in this port).