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: 103376,37f42c4ebb5b5f04 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Ada & Posix Date: 1998/02/23 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 327883705 References: <01bd3fe2$e3a76880$5d2c5c8b@aptiva> <34F16BAE.6005E4A8@cl.cam.ac.uk> X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 888253319 6855 (None) 128.122.140.58 Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Markus says <> Actually GNAT is being used in a wide variety of large scale commercial projects on Unix. Some customers have indeed been interested in a Posix interface, which is why we are working with Ted Baker's team at FSU to integrate Florist with the GNAT release. However, in our experience there are many users of GNAT under Unix who prefer to use pragma Import to get at whatever facilities they need, or who are using other bindings. The demand for a Posix interface is by no means as universal as Markus seems to think it is. Of course I understand the "if only Ada 95 provided XXX, then all the world would flock from C/C++ to Ada 95." I look on all such claims with what the US Secretary of Defence called an "Ohio attitude", namely I won't be convinced till I see some evidence that such a claim is true :-) Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies