Re: Ada not mentioned in GCC 4.3 release notes

[Ivan Levashew <octagram@bluebottle.com>]

Britt Snodgrass пишет:
> Yes, I agree that its looks bad.  I've raised the issue on the gcc
> list before but nothing has happened.


I think there are better ways to raise popularity of Ada. Those who are 
heading FOSS development seem to be completely unaware of Ada. For 
example, A. S. Tanenbaum in his "Modern Operating Systems", chapter 2 
"Processes and threads" used Pidgin Pascal he just invented to 
demonstrate Hoare monitors:

monitor ProducerConsumer
         condition full, empty;
         integer count;

         procedure insert(item: integer);
         begin
                 if count = N then wait(full);
                 insert_item(item);
                 count := count+1;
                 if count = 1 then signal(empty)
         end;
         function remove: integer;
         begin
                 if count = 0 then wait(empty);
                 remove = remove_item;
                 count := count+1;
                 if count = 1 then signal(full)
         end;
         count := 0;
end monitor;

procedure producer;
begin
         while true do
         begin
                 item = produce_item;
                 ProducerConsumer.insert(item)
         end
end;

procedure consumer;
begin
         while true do
         begin
                 item = ProducerConsumer.remove;
                 consume_item(item)
         end
end;

It's not about preferences, it's what complete unawareness is! How many 
people are reinventing Ada?

Tanenbaum's Minix was foundation to Linux, and Tanenbaum's book is very 
popular in systems programming community.

Systems programmers are completely unaware of Ada.
Systems programmers read Tanenbaum's book.
Systems programmers remain completely unaware of Ada.

Another point:

Ada bindings are aliens in the FOSS world. Consider 2 examples:
1. gettext
gettext comes with Java, Lisp, *C#* bindings, but no Ada. If you need 
gettext in Ada, you must use separate package GtkAda (BTW, is there a 
standalone version of gettext/Ada?)

Note C# here.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q2.07/878F362F-2BF5-4C86-84E7-9C976F7BDDD4.html

----------quote------------
Does this mean that Microsoft is now aligned with open source developers 
and working to push open, interoperable implementations of its software? 
Is the old triangle of contention between Microsoft, Linux and Apple 
dissolving into a free and open love circle?

Ha Ha, No.
Microsoft is not trying to usher in a new OpenStep with .Net. It is 
working to usher in a new Win32: another decade of dependance upon 
Microsoft software that can only work on Windows. Why the subterfuge on 
submitting portions of .Net to standards bodies? Three guesses, and the 
first two don't count!

The best way to keep opponents busy is to give them false directions 
that lead into traps. This will distract them from blazing their own 
successful, competing trail, and will lead them directly into 
containment with the least mess and inconvenience.

Microsoft is leading Mono users and developers into a pleasant feeling 
trap. Along the way, they gain appreciation for Microsoft's development 
tools as they struggle to make their own open source copies. They will 
grow increasingly familiar with Microsoft's directions, up to the point 
where they are hopelessly brainwashed into thinking that Microsoft is 
leading technology into a paradise of openness.
----------quote------------

That's why C# must be moved off from gettext to the Gtk#, and Ada 
binding be moved from GtkAda to the gettext instead.

2. SWIG
SWIG support many languages out-of-box, but guess what? GNAT-SWIG is 
still a separate project. It would be natural to aquire GNAT-SWIG into 
the SWIG. Even if it's not tested as good as another bindings. Mark Ada 
support "experimental" and bundle GNAT-SWIG with SWIG.

There must be Ada FOSS wins other than just GCC.