Re: Re=Fun_with_History why_wasnt_Ada83_object_oriented

[Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>]

On Feb 26, 10:28 am, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Le Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:59:07 +0100, Dennis Lee Bieber
> <wlfr...@ix.netcom.com> a écrit:
>
> > On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 06:53:31 -0800 (PST), Marco <prenom_no...@yahoo.com>
> > declaimed the following in comp.lang.ada:
>
> >> It probably wasn't legal to use the term "Ada" for an incomplete
> >> implementation and they were probably sued by the DoD.
>
> >    At the least, a cease&desist order...
>
> >    As I recall, DOD had the name locked down to "no subset, no
> > superset" -- if it diverged from the language reference, it could not be
> > called "Ada".
>
> To be exact, this is allowed if the compiler provides an option to make it
> act in strict Ada mode. This is explicitly stated somewhere in the first
> pages of the Reference Manual.

That has been the case starting with Ada 95.  But, by then, Ada was no
longer trademarked.

The inside cover of my copy of the earlier Reference Manual (for what
we now call Ada 83) stated that "Ada(R) is a registered trademark of
the United States Government, Department of Defense, Under Secretary
for Research and Engineering ... In all contexts, use of the term
"Ada" should indicate conformance to the standard. ... The use of the
trademarked term Ada will be made freely available to those who use it
to indicate conformance to the standard and in conformance with the
following guidelines:

...
Describing, advertising, or promoting a language processor as an "Ada"
processor is equivalent to making a voluntary statement of conformance
to ANSI/MIL-STD-1815A.

The term Ada may be used in describing language processors which are
not completely conforming or are not making a claim of conformance
provided that there is a precise, easily visible statement of their
non-conformance at the same time and in the same context."

There's something about misuse of the term possibly leading to legal
action, but the cover of my Ada 83 RM has been torn up over the years
and I can't quote it.

The trademark was allowed to lapse in 1987.  After that, I believe, it
would have been legal to call a compiler an Ada compiler even if it
was just a subset.  It couldn't claim to be certified or validated,
which might have been a stopper for big commercial users, but probably
not for hobbyists paying $100 for a PC version.

                             -- Adam