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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,d17f9c8d910b90f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s53.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: tmoran@acm.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Microsoft & Ada References: X-Newsreader: Tom's custom newsreader Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.6.132.82 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s53 1094952458 24.6.132.82 (Sun, 12 Sep 2004 01:27:38 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 01:27:38 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 01:27:38 GMT Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3601 Date: 2004-09-12T01:27:38+00:00 List-Id: >> What if, say Microsoft were to design and implement thick Win32 >> bindings for functions that are not standardized in Ada? Some >> examples: Win32 GUI or serial IO. >Probably good, unless it was an attempt (and a successful >one) to eliminate open source bindings and therefore >other products using open source bindings. If MS did that and advertised it, then 99.9% of people would know of the MS bindings. The existing (source available) bindings like Claw, GWindows, etc would remain known to the 0.1% of people who know of them now. The end result seems obvious. >Even if Microsoft's compiler is fully validated (and I wouldn't >take _their_ word for it for a second), it could still contain >extensions (for example, GNAT has 'Img) that no other compiler has Gnat's an interesting example. It's advertised as an Ada compiler, but with the default compilation options, it isn't. And my observation is that a very large fraction of Open Source Ada code is in fact written so it depends on specific characteristics of Gnat.