* Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers @ 2012-05-17 1:25 Jeffrey Carter 2012-05-18 4:17 ` Randy Brukardt 2012-06-21 11:28 ` Nicholas Paul Collin Gloucester 0 siblings, 2 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Carter @ 2012-05-17 1:25 UTC (permalink / raw) From what I can tell, the following companies only offer Ada-95 compilers: DDCI Greenhills RR Software The following offer compilers for current Ada: AdaCore Irvine For the following, I can't tell: Atego IBM/Rational Have I missed anyone? Corrections are welcome. I'm trying to determine the extent of support for current Ada by compiler vendors. -- Jeff Carter "I blow my nose on you." Monty Python & the Holy Grail 03 --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net --- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-17 1:25 Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers Jeffrey Carter @ 2012-05-18 4:17 ` Randy Brukardt 2012-05-18 6:27 ` Jeffrey Carter 2012-06-21 11:28 ` Nicholas Paul Collin Gloucester 1 sibling, 1 reply; 48+ messages in thread From: Randy Brukardt @ 2012-05-18 4:17 UTC (permalink / raw) "Jeffrey Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> wrote in message news:jp1k2n$ouo$1@adenine.netfront.net... > From what I can tell, the following companies only offer Ada-95 compilers: > > DDCI > Greenhills > RR Software Our (RRS) current beta compiler supports a handful of Ada 2005, and the complete Ada 2005 syntax. Not quite just Ada 95. > The following offer compilers for current Ada: > > AdaCore > Irvine Not sure if Irvine supports any Ada 2012, which is "current Ada" in my mind. > For the following, I can't tell: > > Atego > IBM/Rational The Rational compiler supports at least most of Ada 2005 (there was an announcement to this effect a couple years ago). No idea about Ada 2012. My understanding was that Atego was Ada 95-only, but that may be old information. > Have I missed anyone? Corrections are welcome. I'm trying to determine the > extent of support for current Ada by compiler vendors. Randy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 4:17 ` Randy Brukardt @ 2012-05-18 6:27 ` Jeffrey Carter 2012-05-18 11:11 ` Lucretia ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Carter @ 2012-05-18 6:27 UTC (permalink / raw) On 05/17/2012 09:17 PM, Randy Brukardt wrote: > > Our (RRS) current beta compiler supports a handful of Ada 2005, and the > complete Ada 2005 syntax. Not quite just Ada 95. Thanks for the update. To my mind, that's an Ada-95 compiler with a non-standard mode. > Not sure if Irvine supports any Ada 2012, which is "current Ada" in my mind. IIUC, we don't yet have a final, ISO-approved, published version of next Ada yet, so to my mind it's not current Ada yet. > The Rational compiler supports at least most of Ada 2005 (there was an > announcement to this effect a couple years ago). No idea about Ada 2012. That's good to know. So to recap, of 7 compilers, 3 implement the complete current standard (1 of them also implements the draft standard for the next version). 5 years after publication of the standard, that's not very encouraging. -- Jeff Carter Just as Khan was hindered by two-dimensional thinking in a three-dimensional situation, so many developers are hindered by sequential thinking in concurrent situations. 118 --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net --- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 6:27 ` Jeffrey Carter @ 2012-05-18 11:11 ` Lucretia 2012-05-18 12:05 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 2012-05-18 11:57 ` Martin 2012-05-18 13:40 ` Robert A Duff 2 siblings, 1 reply; 48+ messages in thread From: Lucretia @ 2012-05-18 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw) On Friday, May 18, 2012 7:27:42 AM UTC+1, Jeffrey Carter wrote: > So to recap, of 7 compilers, 3 implement the complete current standard (1 of > them also implements the draft standard for the next version). 5 years after > publication of the standard, that's not very encouraging. And only 1 is available to the general public, RR's is affordable though. Luke. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 11:11 ` Lucretia @ 2012-05-18 12:05 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 2012-05-20 8:12 ` Nomen Nescio 0 siblings, 1 reply; 48+ messages in thread From: Nasser M. Abbasi @ 2012-05-18 12:05 UTC (permalink / raw) On 5/18/2012 6:11 AM, Lucretia wrote: > > And only 1 is available to the general public, RR's is affordable though. > > Luke. well, we (i.e the general public :) only really need ONE good, open source Ada compiler any way. right? Look at Java for example, oracle's Java is all there is really. In open source, it is openJDK. That is the Java that everyone uses. That is what I use on Linux and windows. I do not see a problem with having just one Ada compiler. As long as it is open, and free to use, and is good. What is needed for Ada, is more Ada libraries, not more Ada compilers. --Nasser ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 12:05 ` Nasser M. Abbasi @ 2012-05-20 8:12 ` Nomen Nescio 2012-05-20 9:15 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Nomen Nescio @ 2012-05-20 8:12 UTC (permalink / raw) > well, we (i.e the general public :) only really need ONE good, open > source Ada compiler any way. right? No > Look at Java for example, oracle's Java is all there is really. In > open source, it is openJDK. That is the Java that everyone uses. That > is what I use on Linux and windows. No again. There are many JVMs and many compilers. Depends what you need and where you need it. google a search on JVM and you will be surprised how many companies and versions there are. > I do not see a problem with having just one Ada compiler. As > long as it is open, and free to use, and is good. GNAT is certainly very good. But it is a pain in the ass in many ways. It is GPL only and even if you use gcc Ada eventually that is going to cause problems as GPL moves from GPL2 to 3, and who knows what's next. LGPL libraries today, tomorrow everythings GPL, you trusted them, you put all your eggs in one basket, you got screwed. Green Hills (don't know about HQ but the international office I spoke with) are a bunch of pricks. When they found out I wasn't calling from Hughes Aircraft or Boeing they wouldn't even quote me a price. Back to GNAT, it is often not (easily) available on many POSIX platforms and architectures. We have discussed Librecore's abandonment of Solaris recently. There is still a lot of SPARC UNIX being used and no place to get a trusted build and no instructions on building yourself. I'm not even sure there is an Intel Solaris GNAT available anywhere. Is it really that hard for people who "have the technology" to make this available? Yes, we are willing to pay for something as good as GNAT, just not $20,000. Not for one person who isn't going to make any money on it. gcc Ada would be fine (until Stallman drops his GPL bomb on the libraries) but it's only available on Linux and Windows. There are other OS in the world. At least if there would be instructions somewhere how to build it, it would be used a lot more. I guess nobody in a position to do anything about that cares. > What is needed for Ada, is more Ada libraries, not more Ada > compilers. I agree we need more non-GPL libraries but I think we need more compilers and more competition. "Libre" is strangling the business and guess what, the US government paid for GNAT to be developed in the first place. I'd like to hear how that becomes a whole privately held company but corruption and graft in the public sector is nothing new. By the way, no offense intended to Dr. Dewar. Nice job if you can get it. I blame the guys who funded it and then allowed it to become owned by one company. Many people on comp.lang.ada have expressed an interest in buying a development system. But so far none of the vendors except RR are willing to talk to that kind of potential customer. I tried RR a few years ago but the sample executables already didn't run on my 64 bit Linux. It's hard to tell from the website that anything much has happened since 1995. If I didn't read this newsgroup once in awhile I would have no idea the product is still being updated. I would like to hear more updates and what platforms the current products work on. I don't think anybody would object to that here because Mr. Brukhardt is a valued member and contributes plenty to the discussion, he is obviously not selling his products on the newsgroup. I wish he would a little though so we can understand exactly what is offered. Most people who buy any kind of compiler also need a good GUI debugger to go with it. If that isn't available many people probably won't be interested. I don't know what AONIX pricing is or if they have any suitable versions. I don't like to bother people if I am not sure I am going to spend the money so personally I like websites with full info on supported environments and simple to understand all-included products rather than "Contact US and a salesman will call" or "Request a quote". And yes I do buy software and have purchased a non-Ada development system in the past. I realize stuff does cost people money to develop and I don't expect to get anything handed to me. On the other hand I don't expect to have to beg anyone to sell me something, indeed I don't ever do that. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-20 8:12 ` Nomen Nescio @ 2012-05-20 9:15 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 2012-05-20 10:56 ` Simon Wright 2012-05-20 11:30 ` Simon Clubley 2 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) @ 2012-05-20 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw) Le Sun, 20 May 2012 10:12:44 +0200, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> a écrit: > Green Hills (don't know about HQ but the international office I spoke > with) > are a bunch of pricks. When they found out I wasn't calling from Hughes > Aircraft or Boeing they wouldn't even quote me a price. Ouch. If it didn't change, at AdaCore they are way kinder than that (try to call them at your country's office, if you ever feel a need). -- “Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1] “Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1] [1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-20 8:12 ` Nomen Nescio 2012-05-20 9:15 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) @ 2012-05-20 10:56 ` Simon Wright 2012-05-24 17:56 ` Simon Wright 2012-05-20 11:30 ` Simon Clubley 2 siblings, 1 reply; 48+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2012-05-20 10:56 UTC (permalink / raw) Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> writes: > GNAT is certainly very good. But it is a pain in the ass in many ways. It is > GPL only and even if you use gcc Ada eventually that is going to cause > problems as GPL moves from GPL2 to 3, and who knows what's next. LGPL > libraries today, tomorrow everythings GPL, you trusted them, you put all > your eggs in one basket, you got screwed. Not sure it's quite as black as that? FSF GCC has been GPLv3 for a couple of years now, and its libraries (excepting classpath) are released with the GCC Runtime Library Exception: for example, C++ headers say // Under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted additional // permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, version // 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation. FSF seem to have gone to a lot of trouble to make this change[1]. > Back to GNAT, it is often not (easily) available on many POSIX platforms and > architectures. We have discussed Librecore's abandonment of Solaris > recently. There is still a lot of SPARC UNIX being used and no place to get > a trusted build and no instructions on building yourself. I'm not even sure > there is an Intel Solaris GNAT available anywhere. There's a GNAT GPL 2007 at [2]. It would take a while (for someone who had Solaris x86 set up for it, and the inclination) to go from here to an up-to-date compiler, but it should be possible. > gcc Ada would be fine (until > Stallman drops his GPL bomb on the libraries) but it's only available on > Linux and Windows. There are other OS in the world. At least if there would > be instructions somewhere how to build it, it would be used a lot > more. It's certainly available on Mac OS X; for instructions, see [3]. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html [2] http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnuada/files/GNAT_GPL%20Solaris%2010/ [3] http://forward-in-code.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/building-gcc-again.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-20 10:56 ` Simon Wright @ 2012-05-24 17:56 ` Simon Wright 2012-05-24 21:58 ` Nomen Nescio 0 siblings, 1 reply; 48+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 2012-05-24 17:56 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes: > There's a GNAT GPL 2007 at [2]. It would take a while (for someone who > had Solaris x86 set up for it, and the inclination) to go from here to > an up-to-date compiler, but it should be possible. I've built[1] GCC 4.7.0 for Solaris 11 i386/amd64 and uploaded[2] the result. [1] http://forward-in-code.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/building-gcc-with-ada-on-solaris-x86.html [2] https://sourceforge.net/projects/gnuada/files/GNAT_GCC%20Solaris%2011%20i386%2C%20amd64/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-24 17:56 ` Simon Wright @ 2012-05-24 21:58 ` Nomen Nescio 0 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Nomen Nescio @ 2012-05-24 21:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> wrote: > Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes: > > > There's a GNAT GPL 2007 at [2]. It would take a while (for someone who > > had Solaris x86 set up for it, and the inclination) to go from here to > > an up-to-date compiler, but it should be possible. There is no longer any GNAT for Solaris on Libre. The only thing they have is SPARK for SPARC. > I've built[1] GCC 4.7.0 for Solaris 11 i386/amd64 and uploaded[2] the > result. > > [1] http://forward-in-code.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/building-gcc-with-ada-on-solaris-x86.html > [2] https://sourceforge.net/projects/gnuada/files/GNAT_GCC%20Solaris%2011%20i386%2C%20amd64/ Thank you very much. Unfortunately I'm using Solaris 10. I don't know if that will work. But even more, I would like to understand how to build it myself so I don't have to rely on anybody. I'll look at your packages, and hopefully you explained how you did it on your blog. If so, I'll try it myself. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-20 8:12 ` Nomen Nescio 2012-05-20 9:15 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 2012-05-20 10:56 ` Simon Wright @ 2012-05-20 11:30 ` Simon Clubley 2012-05-21 2:24 ` Britt ` (2 more replies) 2 siblings, 3 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Simon Clubley @ 2012-05-20 11:30 UTC (permalink / raw) On 2012-05-20, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote: > > GNAT is certainly very good. But it is a pain in the ass in many ways. It is > GPL only and even if you use gcc Ada eventually that is going to cause > problems as GPL moves from GPL2 to 3, and who knows what's next. LGPL > libraries today, tomorrow everythings GPL, you trusted them, you put all > your eggs in one basket, you got screwed. > I am assuming above that by "gcc Ada", you mean the FSF branch; I use the FSF branch in order to avoid GPL issues and because when I need a RTOS, the RTOS I use (RTEMS) also uses it. The GPL 2 to GPL 3 comment has caught my attention. Given that the FSF Ada runtime libraries come with the GMGPL exception, what issues are raised by the GPL 2 to GPL 3 conversion ? I am assuming I have missed something, but I don't know what. On a more general note, one of the problems is that if you want to do hard real time/bare metal/low level programming using a Wirth type language, which I do, then Ada appears to be the only viable choice. I would really like to find another choice as a backup option, but what I have looked at so far (Modula-2, a Oberon variant, etc) appear to all be one-off ports or lacking in other ways. There are more options available if you want to do non-realtime application level programming under a mainstream operating system, but for system level work, Ada appears to be the only real viable option. Has anyone here used another Wirth type language in a real time system level environment, and if so, what kind of experience did you have ? > > Back to GNAT, it is often not (easily) available on many POSIX platforms and > architectures. We have discussed Librecore's abandonment of Solaris > recently. There is still a lot of SPARC UNIX being used and no place to get > a trusted build and no instructions on building yourself. I'm not even sure > there is an Intel Solaris GNAT available anywhere. Is it really that hard > for people who "have the technology" to make this available? Yes, we are > willing to pay for something as good as GNAT, just not $20,000. Not for one > person who isn't going to make any money on it. gcc Ada would be fine (until > Stallman drops his GPL bomb on the libraries) but it's only available on > Linux and Windows. Can you point to this "GPL bomb" issue, please ? It's something I need to become aware of and a quick search didn't reveal anything. BTW, wouldn't it affect C++ code just as much as Ada code ? If that's the case, then we may end up with a XFree86/X.Org type situation once again. BTW, as well as the native support, FSF Ada does work as a cross compiler for a couple of targets. I have used it in the past to run Ada code on AVR MCUs and more recently, on ARM based MCUs using RTEMS. Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-20 11:30 ` Simon Clubley @ 2012-05-21 2:24 ` Britt 2012-05-21 12:12 ` Simon Clubley 2012-05-22 12:01 ` Stephen Leake 2012-05-22 16:43 ` Nomen Nescio 2 siblings, 1 reply; 48+ messages in thread From: Britt @ 2012-05-21 2:24 UTC (permalink / raw) The "GPL Bomb" in this context is a "FUD". I just downloaded the GNAT FSF sources contained in the latest GCC 4.7.0 from gnu.org and looked in the header of the system.ads and other runtime files. They all contain this: -- As a special exception under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted -- -- additional permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, -- -- version 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation. -- which is the same as the file headers in the current GNAT Pro sources (but different than the GNAT GPL sources). The GCC Runtime Library Exception is here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception.html It doesn't seem any different in effect than the older GMGPL runtime exception statement except that the definitions and wording in the full text of the new runtime library exception make for a clearer and more complete statement of intent. The key statements are: "When you use GCC to compile a program, GCC may combine portions of certain GCC header files and runtime libraries with the compiled program. The purpose of this Exception is to allow compilation of non- GPL (including proprietary) programs to use, in this way, the header files and runtime libraries covered by this Exception." and "1. Grant of Additional Permission. You have permission to propagate a work of Target Code formed by combining the Runtime Library with Independent Modules, even if such propagation would otherwise violate the terms of GPLv3, provided that all Target Code was generated by Eligible Compilation Processes. You may then convey such a combination under terms of your choice, consistent with the licensing of the Independent Modules" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-21 2:24 ` Britt @ 2012-05-21 12:12 ` Simon Clubley 0 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Simon Clubley @ 2012-05-21 12:12 UTC (permalink / raw) On 2012-05-20, Britt <britt.snodgrass@gmail.com> wrote: > The "GPL Bomb" in this context is a "FUD". I just downloaded the GNAT > FSF sources contained in the latest GCC 4.7.0 from gnu.org and looked > in the header of the system.ads and other runtime files. They all > contain this: > > -- As a special exception under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are > granted -- > -- additional permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library > Exception, -- > -- version 3.1, as published by the Free Software > Foundation. -- > > which is the same as the file headers in the current GNAT Pro sources > (but different than the GNAT GPL sources). > Which is basically the same as the last time I looked. My concern here is that the OP may found discussions of a possible license change on, say, a mailing list somewhere which has not yet been implemented. A search with google has not turned up anything however; I have only found the discussions about allowing gcc plugins around the time of the 4.4 series. Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-20 11:30 ` Simon Clubley 2012-05-21 2:24 ` Britt @ 2012-05-22 12:01 ` Stephen Leake 2012-05-22 23:25 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 2012-05-22 16:43 ` Nomen Nescio 2 siblings, 1 reply; 48+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2012-05-22 12:01 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes: > On 2012-05-20, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote: >> >> GNAT is certainly very good. But it is a pain in the ass in many ways. It is >> GPL only and even if you use gcc Ada eventually that is going to cause >> problems as GPL moves from GPL2 to 3, and who knows what's next. LGPL >> libraries today, tomorrow everythings GPL, you trusted them, you put all >> your eggs in one basket, you got screwed. >> > > I am assuming above that by "gcc Ada", you mean the FSF branch; I use the > FSF branch in order to avoid GPL issues and because when I need a RTOS, the > RTOS I use (RTEMS) also uses it. > > The GPL 2 to GPL 3 comment has caught my attention. Given that the FSF Ada > runtime libraries come with the GMGPL exception, what issues are raised > by the GPL 2 to GPL 3 conversion ? None; he's spreading FUD. > I am assuming I have missed something, but I don't know what. The language has changed in detail, because GPL 3 provides a general mechanism for specifying things like GMGPL. But the meaning is the same; the GNAT runtime and generics are open source, but usuable in a proprietary system. AdaCore provides the same exception as FSF GNAT on their GNATPro sources; that's their core business, so you can believe they got it right! -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-22 12:01 ` Stephen Leake @ 2012-05-22 23:25 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 2012-05-24 1:12 ` Stephen Leake 0 siblings, 1 reply; 48+ messages in thread From: Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) @ 2012-05-22 23:25 UTC (permalink / raw) Le Tue, 22 May 2012 14:01:20 +0200, Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> a écrit: >> The GPL 2 to GPL 3 comment has caught my attention. Given that the FSF >> Ada >> runtime libraries come with the GMGPL exception, what issues are raised >> by the GPL 2 to GPL 3 conversion ? > > None; he's spreading FUD. > >> I am assuming I have missed something, but I don't know what. > > The language has changed in detail, because GPL 3 provides a general > mechanism for specifying things like GMGPL. But the meaning is the same; Do I understand correctly if I understand there will be no need for the GMGPL specific text anymore, and now just simply the GPL v3 exception will do the trick? -- “Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1] “Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1] [1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-22 23:25 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) @ 2012-05-24 1:12 ` Stephen Leake 0 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2012-05-24 1:12 UTC (permalink / raw) "Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes: > Le Tue, 22 May 2012 14:01:20 +0200, Stephen Leake > <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> a écrit: >>> The GPL 2 to GPL 3 comment has caught my attention. Given that the >>> FSF Ada >>> runtime libraries come with the GMGPL exception, what issues are raised >>> by the GPL 2 to GPL 3 conversion ? >> >> None; he's spreading FUD. >> >>> I am assuming I have missed something, but I don't know what. >> >> The language has changed in detail, because GPL 3 provides a general >> mechanism for specifying things like GMGPL. But the meaning is the same; > > Do I understand correctly if I understand there will be no need for > the GMGPL specific text anymore, and now just simply the GPL v3 > exception will do the trick? Yes. -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-20 11:30 ` Simon Clubley 2012-05-21 2:24 ` Britt 2012-05-22 12:01 ` Stephen Leake @ 2012-05-22 16:43 ` Nomen Nescio 2012-05-22 23:36 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) ` (3 more replies) 2 siblings, 4 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Nomen Nescio @ 2012-05-22 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw) Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote: > I am assuming above that by "gcc Ada", you mean the FSF branch; I use the > FSF branch in order to avoid GPL issues and because when I need a RTOS, the > RTOS I use (RTEMS) also uses it. Yes, that's what I mean. > The GPL 2 to GPL 3 comment has caught my attention. Given that the FSF Ada > runtime libraries come with the GMGPL exception, what issues are raised > by the GPL 2 to GPL 3 conversion ? I am assuming I have missed something, > but I don't know what. It could be FUD but I have read FSF is eventually planning to do away with the LGPL for libraries and has started moving to GPL3 for everything. I personally wouldn't put anything past Stallman. I think it's only a matter of time. He knows what he can get away with and what he can't. He's just biding his time. It gives the FSF guys indigestion knowing there is any library LGPLd. > On a more general note, one of the problems is that if you want to do hard > real time/bare metal/low level programming using a Wirth type language, > which I do, then Ada appears to be the only viable choice. I would really > like to find another choice as a backup option, but what I have looked at > so far (Modula-2, a Oberon variant, etc) appear to all be one-off ports > or lacking in other ways. I don't know what to say on this. Maybe Modula-3 is worth a look? > Can you point to this "GPL bomb" issue, please ? It's something I need to > become aware of and a quick search didn't reveal anything. BTW, wouldn't > it affect C++ code just as much as Ada code ? If that's the case, then we > may end up with a XFree86/X.Org type situation once again. Following various various newsgroups and posts for the last few years this is my feeling. Nobody comes out and says it. Yes, it will affect all the gcc stuff, not just Ada. I think projects like FreeBSD are aware of it and concerned and that is also motivating the move to clang (llvm). The BSD projects will start moving off gcc and then gcc will eventually reduce support for all non-Linux platforms (most people using gcc don't realize anything but Linux exists anyway) and then nobody will be left to object to everything being plain GPL 3 (or 4 or 5..) Thanks to you and the other Simon for the info. I'd like to get at least gcc Ada with lgpl libraries to run on Solaris. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-22 16:43 ` Nomen Nescio @ 2012-05-22 23:36 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 2012-05-23 12:16 ` Fritz Wuehler 2012-05-23 1:00 ` Britt ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 48+ messages in thread From: Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) @ 2012-05-22 23:36 UTC (permalink / raw) Le Tue, 22 May 2012 18:43:22 +0200, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> a écrit: > It gives the FSF guys indigestion knowing there is any > library LGPLd. At least, this one is not FUD (lol). I myself, have read some text from the FSF which left me with a similar feeling. Anyway, there is still no real‑life issue with the GPL and GNAT. If there are issues, these are elsewhere, like with suspected (erroneous or not) intents, political opinions and others. I don't believe the runtime libraries will ever become pure GPL, because as much they would like, if they could, make every thing pure GPL, *they are as much aware they can't* and aware doing so will be counterproductive for the FSF lobbying, as making runtime libraries pure GPL, would prevent many people from using it at all. They know it, and although they don't like it, they have to do with it. Conclusion: it's unlikely there will ever be an concrete issue with it, at least not before a rather far future. May be you are less spreading FUD (which is always too bad to say to someone) than doing unprobable extrapolations, for some reasons you are the only one to know. -- “Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1] “Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1] [1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-22 23:36 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) @ 2012-05-23 12:16 ` Fritz Wuehler 2012-05-25 11:58 ` Simon Clubley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 48+ messages in thread From: Fritz Wuehler @ 2012-05-23 12:16 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2079 bytes --] Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57 ) <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote: > opinions and others. I don't believe the runtime libraries will ever > become pure GPL, because as much they would like, if they could, make > every thing pure GPL, *they are as much aware they can't* and aware doing > so will be counterproductive for the FSF lobbying, as making runtime > libraries pure GPL, would prevent many people from using it at all. I explained how this will work. Right now everyone realizes Linux is the major focus of FSF because Linux kernel is GPL, Linux people love GPL, etc. Autotools is supposed to work cross platform but it's mostly for Linux. The BSD groups (Open, Free, Net, DragonFly) don't like GPL and they are moving at different rates to clang/LLVM and other ways of reducing dependence on gnu toolchain and other GPL code and have very little GPL compared to Linux. What I think is going to happen is as everybody who doesn't like GPL moves off GPL-anything, the people who like GPL (Linux developers and users) will not be upset at all, indeed they will be very happy, to see all their libraries GPLd. So no, FSF can't go GPL libraries today, but things are moving in the right direction (for everybody, really) so sooner or later only Linux code will be GPL, including all the libraries, and BSD and other projects will have virtually no GPL code. Then there will be no war and nobody upset when FSF GPLs all the libraries. > May be you are less spreading FUD (which is always too bad to say to > someone) than doing unprobable extrapolations, for some reasons you are > the only one to know. I've been right about stuff like this before and I think the extrapolations are reasonable conclusions based on actual trends. Having a major project like FreeBSD openly state their goal to get off gcc and move to clang/LLVM is something that will have far reaching effects. Right now it is possible to compile ALL of FreeBSD with clang. This shows people there is no reason to be serfs to Stallman or enslaved by GPL, or FSF, etc. That's REAL freedom! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-23 12:16 ` Fritz Wuehler @ 2012-05-25 11:58 ` Simon Clubley 0 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Simon Clubley @ 2012-05-25 11:58 UTC (permalink / raw) On 2012-05-23, Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201205.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote: > <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote: > >> opinions and others. I don't believe the runtime libraries will ever >> become pure GPL, because as much they would like, if they could, make >> every thing pure GPL, *they are as much aware they can't* and aware doing >> so will be counterproductive for the FSF lobbying, as making runtime >> libraries pure GPL, would prevent many people from using it at all. > > I explained how this will work. Right now everyone realizes Linux is the > major focus of FSF because Linux kernel is GPL, Linux people love GPL, > etc. Autotools is supposed to work cross platform but it's mostly for Linux. > > The BSD groups (Open, Free, Net, DragonFly) don't like GPL and they are > moving at different rates to clang/LLVM and other ways of reducing > dependence on gnu toolchain and other GPL code and have very little GPL > compared to Linux. > > What I think is going to happen is as everybody who doesn't like GPL moves > off GPL-anything, the people who like GPL (Linux developers and users) will > not be upset at all, indeed they will be very happy, to see all their > libraries GPLd. So no, FSF can't go GPL libraries today, but things are > moving in the right direction (for everybody, really) so sooner or later > only Linux code will be GPL, including all the libraries, and BSD and other > projects will have virtually no GPL code. Then there will be no war and > nobody upset when FSF GPLs all the libraries. > If this played out as you describe, then the day that the FSF applies the pure GPL (without any exceptions, including the LGPL, allowed) to it's libraries will be the day that commercial closed source development will end on Linux. Day+1 will be the day that RedHat, with it's large commercial user base (and support contracts to match) will fork the libraries in question under the original license and commercial development on Linux will resume, but with the FSF no longer been relevant. This has happened before and can happen again. (XFree86 -> X.Org) For this reason, I am not worried about the FSF making everything pure GPL even though some may wish to. However, a more targetted move to the GPL, such as when ACT removed the GMGPL exception on the public version of GtkAda, is always possible, but I don't see any evidence of anyone moving in this direction yet with GNAT itself. However, it's always nice to have backup options (even though I prefer Ada) in case this does happen, so thanks to everyone for their suggestions. Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-22 16:43 ` Nomen Nescio 2012-05-22 23:36 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) @ 2012-05-23 1:00 ` Britt 2012-05-24 7:57 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 2012-05-23 21:44 ` Shark8 2012-05-24 1:14 ` Stephen Leake 3 siblings, 1 reply; 48+ messages in thread From: Britt @ 2012-05-23 1:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On May 22, 12:43 pm, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote: > Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote: > > I am assuming above that by "gcc Ada", you mean the FSF branch; I use the > > FSF branch in order to avoid GPL issues and because when I need a RTOS, the > > RTOS I use (RTEMS) also uses it. > > Yes, that's what I mean. > > > The GPL 2 to GPL 3 comment has caught my attention. Given that the FSF Ada > > runtime libraries come with the GMGPL exception, what issues are raised > > by the GPL 2 to GPL 3 conversion ? I am assuming I have missed something, > > but I don't know what. > > It could be FUD but I have read FSF is eventually planning to do away with > the LGPL for libraries and has started moving to GPL3 for everything. I > personally wouldn't put anything past Stallman. I think it's only a matter > of time. He knows what he can get away with and what he can't. He's just > biding his time. It gives the FSF guys indigestion knowing there is any > library LGPLd. > <snip> > > Thanks to you and the other Simon for the info. I'd like to get at least gcc > Ada with lgpl libraries to run on Solaris. It seems you are confused, as I once was*, about GNAT and the "Lesser GPL" (LGPL). The LGPL has never been applied to GNAT. GNAT Pro and FSF GNAT have always been licensed as either GPLv2 with the GMGPL special exception or, currently, GPLv3 with the GCC Runtime Library Exception v3.1. The relatively recent GNAT GPL editions are GPLv3 without the exception. So no LGPL in the mix anywhere. Here is a good reference on the topic: http://people.debian.org/~lbrenta/debian-ada-policy.html#The-variants-of-GNAT * See this very old thread where I was wrong and got re-calibrated: https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/browse_frm/thread/f6ad09be517b338c/e716c9bfdc1b0612?#e716c9bfdc1b0612 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-23 1:00 ` Britt @ 2012-05-24 7:57 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 0 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) @ 2012-05-24 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw) Le Wed, 23 May 2012 03:00:25 +0200, Britt <britt.snodgrass@gmail.com> a écrit: > Here is a good reference on the topic: > http://people.debian.org/~lbrenta/debian-ada-policy.html#The-variants-of-GNAT Also of interest in that topic context, is the appendix D, at the very bottom of the same page. -- “Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1] “Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1] [1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-22 16:43 ` Nomen Nescio 2012-05-22 23:36 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 2012-05-23 1:00 ` Britt @ 2012-05-23 21:44 ` Shark8 2012-05-24 1:14 ` Stephen Leake 3 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Shark8 @ 2012-05-23 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw) On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 11:43:22 AM UTC-5, Nomen Nescio wrote: > Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote: > > On a more general note, one of the problems is that if you want to do hard > > real time/bare metal/low level programming using a Wirth type language, > > which I do, then Ada appears to be the only viable choice. I would really > > like to find another choice as a backup option, but what I have looked at > > so far (Modula-2, a Oberon variant, etc) appear to all be one-off ports > > or lacking in other ways. > > I don't know what to say on this. Maybe Modula-3 is worth a look? You might also want to look into Oberon. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-22 16:43 ` Nomen Nescio ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2012-05-23 21:44 ` Shark8 @ 2012-05-24 1:14 ` Stephen Leake 3 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 2012-05-24 1:14 UTC (permalink / raw) Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> writes: > Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote: > >> I am assuming above that by "gcc Ada", you mean the FSF branch; I use the >> FSF branch in order to avoid GPL issues and because when I need a RTOS, the >> RTOS I use (RTEMS) also uses it. > > Yes, that's what I mean. > >> The GPL 2 to GPL 3 comment has caught my attention. Given that the FSF Ada >> runtime libraries come with the GMGPL exception, what issues are raised >> by the GPL 2 to GPL 3 conversion ? I am assuming I have missed something, >> but I don't know what. > > It could be FUD but I have read FSF is eventually planning to do away with > the LGPL for libraries and has started moving to GPL3 for everything. Actually, "GPL3 + library exceptions". The point is that GPL 3 provides a mechanism to specify exceptions, so the intent of LGPL (which is similar to the intent of GMGPL) can be achieved by GPL 3 plus an appropriate exception. -- -- Stephe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 6:27 ` Jeffrey Carter 2012-05-18 11:11 ` Lucretia @ 2012-05-18 11:57 ` Martin 2012-05-18 13:40 ` Robert A Duff 2 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Martin @ 2012-05-18 11:57 UTC (permalink / raw) On Friday, May 18, 2012 7:27:42 AM UTC+1, Jeffrey Carter wrote: > On 05/17/2012 09:17 PM, Randy Brukardt wrote: > > > > Our (RRS) current beta compiler supports a handful of Ada 2005, and the > > complete Ada 2005 syntax. Not quite just Ada 95. > > Thanks for the update. To my mind, that's an Ada-95 compiler with a non-standard > mode. > > > Not sure if Irvine supports any Ada 2012, which is "current Ada" in my mind. > > IIUC, we don't yet have a final, ISO-approved, published version of next Ada > yet, so to my mind it's not current Ada yet. > > > The Rational compiler supports at least most of Ada 2005 (there was an > > announcement to this effect a couple years ago). No idea about Ada 2012. > > That's good to know. > > So to recap, of 7 compilers, 3 implement the complete current standard (1 of > them also implements the draft standard for the next version). 5 years after > publication of the standard, that's not very encouraging. > > -- > Jeff Carter > Just as Khan was hindered by two-dimensional thinking in a > three-dimensional situation, so many developers are hindered > by sequential thinking in concurrent situations. > 118 > > --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net --- If their customers aren't calling for it, it's a hard agrument to make for spending time (i.e. money) changing a product and potentially introducing new bugs that might break the existing compiler... I'm always amazed that more compiler vendors don't offer a $0.00 or $49.99 or $99.99 'home' version though... And I guess, I thought maybe 1 or 2 might have taken the jump to 'open source' their compilers...just to try and hook more people into using the language. Even if they just released their Win32 version and not the more commercial PPC604/VxWorks targeting versions. -- Martin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 6:27 ` Jeffrey Carter 2012-05-18 11:11 ` Lucretia 2012-05-18 11:57 ` Martin @ 2012-05-18 13:40 ` Robert A Duff 2012-05-18 18:53 ` Shark8 2012-05-18 19:13 ` Jeffrey Carter 2 siblings, 2 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 2012-05-18 13:40 UTC (permalink / raw) Jeffrey Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> writes: > On 05/17/2012 09:17 PM, Randy Brukardt wrote: >> >> Our (RRS) current beta compiler supports a handful of Ada 2005, and the >> complete Ada 2005 syntax. Not quite just Ada 95. > > Thanks for the update. To my mind, that's an Ada-95 compiler with a > non-standard mode. Well, as far as ISO standards are concerned, there is only one Ada, and that's what we call Ada 2005, so it doesn't make sense to talk about "nonstandard modes" with respect to Ada 95. >> Not sure if Irvine supports any Ada 2012, which is "current Ada" in my mind. > > IIUC, we don't yet have a final, ISO-approved, published version of next > Ada yet, so to my mind it's not current Ada yet. Right, Randy's mind is a few months ahead of ISO's mind. >> The Rational compiler supports at least most of Ada 2005 (there was an >> announcement to this effect a couple years ago). No idea about Ada 2012. > > That's good to know. > > So to recap, of 7 compilers, 3 implement the complete current standard > (1 of them also implements the draft standard for the next version). 5 > years after publication of the standard, that's not very encouraging. Why do you say so? It's much better than the situation in the C world. - Bob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 13:40 ` Robert A Duff @ 2012-05-18 18:53 ` Shark8 2012-05-18 22:52 ` Robert A Duff 2012-05-18 19:13 ` Jeffrey Carter 1 sibling, 1 reply; 48+ messages in thread From: Shark8 @ 2012-05-18 18:53 UTC (permalink / raw) On Friday, May 18, 2012 8:40:38 AM UTC-5, Robert A Duff wrote: > Jeffrey Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> writes: > > So to recap, of 7 compilers, 3 implement the complete current standard > > (1 of them also implements the draft standard for the next version). 5 > > years after publication of the standard, that's not very encouraging. > > Why do you say so? It's much better than the situation in the C world. > > - Bob Could you elaborate on that? (What is the situation in the C/C++ world?) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 18:53 ` Shark8 @ 2012-05-18 22:52 ` Robert A Duff 2012-05-18 23:03 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 48+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 2012-05-18 22:52 UTC (permalink / raw) Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com> writes: > Could you elaborate on that? (What is the situation in the C/C++ world?) I don't really know. My impression is that most C compilers do not fully support the latest C standard, or even the second-to-latest one. - Bob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 22:52 ` Robert A Duff @ 2012-05-18 23:03 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 0 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Nasser M. Abbasi @ 2012-05-18 23:03 UTC (permalink / raw) On 5/18/2012 5:52 PM, Robert A Duff wrote: > Shark8<onewingedshark@gmail.com> writes: > >> Could you elaborate on that? (What is the situation in the C/C++ world?) > > I don't really know. My impression is that most C compilers do not > fully support the latest C standard, or even the second-to-latest one. > > - Bob from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_C compilers supproting ansi c are GCC Microsoft Visual C++ (C90. A few features of C99) LabWindows/CVI ARM RealView LCC OpenWatcom (C89/90 and some C99) per (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C11_%28C_standard_revision%29) c11 is the current C standard. From the above it says: "GCC version 4.6 and Pelles C version 7.00 (RC1) have added initial support for some features from the C11 draft.[5][6]" --Nasser ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 13:40 ` Robert A Duff 2012-05-18 18:53 ` Shark8 @ 2012-05-18 19:13 ` Jeffrey Carter 2012-05-18 19:43 ` Mike Silva 1 sibling, 1 reply; 48+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Carter @ 2012-05-18 19:13 UTC (permalink / raw) On 05/18/2012 06:40 AM, Robert A Duff wrote: > Jeffrey Carter<spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> writes: >> >> So to recap, of 7 compilers, 3 implement the complete current standard >> (1 of them also implements the draft standard for the next version). 5 >> years after publication of the standard, that's not very encouraging. > > Why do you say so? It's much better than the situation in the C world. I compare it to the situation in 2000, 5 yrs after publication of the Ada-95 standard, when everyone had implemented Ada 95 for several yrs. -- Jeff Carter "We use a large, vibrating egg." Annie Hall 44 --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net --- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 19:13 ` Jeffrey Carter @ 2012-05-18 19:43 ` Mike Silva 2012-05-18 20:02 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 48+ messages in thread From: Mike Silva @ 2012-05-18 19:43 UTC (permalink / raw) On Friday, May 18, 2012 12:13:00 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Carter wrote: > On 05/18/2012 06:40 AM, Robert A Duff wrote: > > Jeffrey Carter<spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> writes: > >> > >> So to recap, of 7 compilers, 3 implement the complete current standard > >> (1 of them also implements the draft standard for the next version). 5 > >> years after publication of the standard, that's not very encouraging. > > > > Why do you say so? It's much better than the situation in the C world. > > I compare it to the situation in 2000, 5 yrs after publication of the Ada-95 > standard, when everyone had implemented Ada 95 for several yrs. Yeah, it gives off a vague sense that Ada is dying. Speaking of the C world, I'm hoping that with the AdaCore merger Ada Magic will come to support Ada 2005 (or better). That would be very nice. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 19:43 ` Mike Silva @ 2012-05-18 20:02 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 2012-05-18 20:35 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Nasser M. Abbasi @ 2012-05-18 20:02 UTC (permalink / raw) On 5/18/2012 2:43 PM, Mike Silva wrote: > > Yeah, it gives off a vague sense that Ada is dying. > It is not that Ada is dying (or Fortran or few others for that matter), it is that all the developers are/have been moving to the exciting new world of mobile and rich internet software development, using HTML5 and Javascript. Windows 8 all new apps development is/will be in HTML5 and Javascript. This is the new world order of software engineering. After 50 years of computer science and programming languages research, the world has decided it will be Javascript and HTML5. If someone can make an Ada to Javascript compiler, may be there is still a chance? --Nasser ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 20:02 ` Nasser M. Abbasi @ 2012-05-18 20:35 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2012-05-18 20:52 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 2012-05-19 1:36 ` Shark8 2012-05-19 13:44 ` Marco 2012-05-21 15:36 ` NatarovVI 2 siblings, 2 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2012-05-18 20:35 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, 18 May 2012 15:02:46 -0500, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > Windows 8 all new apps development is/will be in HTML5 and > Javascript. It will be what Microsoft decide it to be in. BTW, chances are high that Window 8 will not make it. Customers tend to refuse MS OSes when advantages are unclear, e.g. Me, Vista. XP had it very hard in the beginning. > This is the new world order of software engineering. After 50 years > of computer science and programming languages research, the world has > decided it will be Javascript and HTML5. No. Due to opening a new market the technology (rather lack of) is returning to the point where it was 20-30 years ago. Such retreats always happen when there is no pressure to improve quality or safety. In 10 years software development will recover things it managed to forget now. Not for the first time. Remember how multi-tasking was forgotten when PCs came? Microsoft "discovered" that decades later. > If someone can make an Ada to Javascript compiler, may be there > is still a chance? Nope. Machine in the hands of a savage is scrap metal. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 20:35 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2012-05-18 20:52 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 2012-05-18 21:07 ` Nasser M. Abbasi ` (2 more replies) 2012-05-19 1:36 ` Shark8 1 sibling, 3 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Nasser M. Abbasi @ 2012-05-18 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw) On 5/18/2012 3:35 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> This is the new world order of software engineering. After 50 years >> of computer science and programming languages research, the world has >> decided it will be Javascript and HTML5. > > No. Due to opening a new market the technology (rather lack of) is > returning to the point where it was 20-30 years ago. Such retreats always > happen when there is no pressure to improve quality or safety. > That is funny you said that. I was just now thinking the same thing as I was looking at a web site that tells which browsers supports which feature of HTML5 and Javascript. The reason is, I remember doing the same thing many many years ago, when I was just learning the new Java and looking to see which operating system supports which features of Java and such. So, the picture has changed from app app +----------+-----------+...... | Java VM | Java VM | +----------+-----------+..... | OS | OS | +----------+-----------+..... To now, almost 20 years later to become HTML5/JS app HTML5/JS app +--------------+--------------+..... | browser 1 | browser 2 | +--------------+--------------+..... | OS | OS | +--------------+--------------+..... Well, it is progress I guess. The Java VM was replaced by the browser, and Java is replaced by HTML/Javascript. I can't wait to see what the picture will be 20 years from now :) --Nasser ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 20:52 ` Nasser M. Abbasi @ 2012-05-18 21:07 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 2012-05-18 21:15 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2012-05-21 15:46 ` NatarovVI 2 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Nasser M. Abbasi @ 2012-05-18 21:07 UTC (permalink / raw) On 5/18/2012 3:52 PM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > > So, the picture has changed from > > app app > +----------+-----------+...... > | Java VM | Java VM | > +----------+-----------+..... > | OS | OS | > +----------+-----------+..... > > To now, almost 20 years later to become > > > HTML5/JS app HTML5/JS app > +--------------+--------------+..... > | browser 1 | browser 2 | > +--------------+--------------+..... > | OS | OS | > +--------------+--------------+..... > I'd like to make small improvement the above software architecture. I think it should be like this: 20 years ago, the vision was Java app + | JVM /|\ / | \ / | \ / | \ OS1 OS2 OS3 ..... Now it evolved to HTML5/JS app + /|\ / | \ / | \ / | \ browser1 br2 browser3 .... (mobile platforms) /|\ / | \ / | \ / | \ OS1 OS2 OS3 ..... Before, we had one JVM on top of N number of OS's. Now we have M browsers on top of the same N number of OS's. A progress, in a way. --Nasser ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 20:52 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 2012-05-18 21:07 ` Nasser M. Abbasi @ 2012-05-18 21:15 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2012-05-19 15:16 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 2012-05-21 15:46 ` NatarovVI 2 siblings, 1 reply; 48+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2012-05-18 21:15 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, 18 May 2012 15:52:00 -0500, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > On 5/18/2012 3:35 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >>> This is the new world order of software engineering. After 50 years >>> of computer science and programming languages research, the world has >>> decided it will be Javascript and HTML5. >> >> No. Due to opening a new market the technology (rather lack of) is >> returning to the point where it was 20-30 years ago. Such retreats always >> happen when there is no pressure to improve quality or safety. >> > > That is funny you said that. I was just now thinking the same > thing as I was looking at a web site that tells which browsers > supports which feature of HTML5 and Javascript. > > The reason is, I remember doing the same thing many many > years ago, when I was just learning the new Java and looking > to see which operating system supports which features of Java > and such. > > So, the picture has changed from > > app app > +----------+-----------+...... > | Java VM | Java VM | > +----------+-----------+..... > | OS | OS | > +----------+-----------+..... > > To now, almost 20 years later to become > > HTML5/JS app HTML5/JS app > +--------------+--------------+..... > | browser 1 | browser 2 | > +--------------+--------------+..... > | OS | OS | > +--------------+--------------+..... > > Well, it is progress I guess. The Java VM was replaced by > the browser, and Java is replaced by HTML/Javascript. > > I can't wait to see what the picture will be 20 years from now :) App (distributed) +------+------+ | OS (distributed) +------+------+ Layers above OS were only necessary because of retarded OSes like UNIX and Windows. They sealed the toilet's pit. Alas, being not much more hygienic (I would say most of them were actually much worse) they required another layers above them, and so on. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 21:15 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2012-05-19 15:16 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 0 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) @ 2012-05-19 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw) Le Fri, 18 May 2012 23:15:48 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit: > On Fri, 18 May 2012 15:52:00 -0500, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > >> On 5/18/2012 3:35 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> >>>> This is the new world order of software engineering. After 50 years >>>> of computer science and programming languages research, the world has >>>> decided it will be Javascript and HTML5. >>> >>> No. Due to opening a new market the technology (rather lack of) is >>> returning to the point where it was 20-30 years ago. Such retreats >>> always >>> happen when there is no pressure to improve quality or safety. >>> >> >> That is funny you said that. I was just now thinking the same >> thing as I was looking at a web site that tells which browsers >> supports which feature of HTML5 and Javascript. >> >> The reason is, I remember doing the same thing many many >> years ago, when I was just learning the new Java and looking >> to see which operating system supports which features of Java >> and such. >> >> So, the picture has changed from >> >> app app >> +----------+-----------+...... >> | Java VM | Java VM | >> +----------+-----------+..... >> | OS | OS | >> +----------+-----------+..... >> >> To now, almost 20 years later to become >> >> HTML5/JS app HTML5/JS app >> +--------------+--------------+..... >> | browser 1 | browser 2 | >> +--------------+--------------+..... >> | OS | OS | >> +--------------+--------------+..... >> >> Well, it is progress I guess. The Java VM was replaced by >> the browser, and Java is replaced by HTML/Javascript. >> >> I can't wait to see what the picture will be 20 years from now :) > > App (distributed) > +------+------+ > | OS (distributed) > +------+------+ > > Layers above OS were only necessary because of retarded OSes like UNIX > and > Windows. They sealed the toilet's pit. Alas, being not much more hygienic > (I would say most of them were actually much worse) they required another > layers above them, and so on. Lacking things as fundamental as a minimal common and native standard UI API. The “that layer over that layer” is often most required for UIs. By the way, I still believe the web standards may be a chance in that matter. -- “Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1] “Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1] [1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 20:52 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 2012-05-18 21:07 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 2012-05-18 21:15 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2012-05-21 15:46 ` NatarovVI 2 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: NatarovVI @ 2012-05-21 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw) > Well, it is progress I guess. The Java VM was replaced by the browser, > and Java is replaced by HTML/Javascript. i think javascript is your bad karma)) > I can't wait to see what the picture will be 20 years from now :) > --Nasser essentially? same is. because people sins remains the same. lasiness, greed, egoism... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 20:35 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2012-05-18 20:52 ` Nasser M. Abbasi @ 2012-05-19 1:36 ` Shark8 2012-05-19 2:02 ` Nasser M. Abbasi ` (3 more replies) 1 sibling, 4 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Shark8 @ 2012-05-19 1:36 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: mailbox On Friday, May 18, 2012 3:35:11 PM UTC-5, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On Fri, 18 May 2012 15:02:46 -0500, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > > > This is the new world order of software engineering. After 50 years > > of computer science and programming languages research, the world has > > decided it will be Javascript and HTML5. > > No. Due to opening a new market the technology (rather lack of) is > returning to the point where it was 20-30 years ago. Such retreats always > happen when there is no pressure to improve quality or safety. Does this mean we'll be having PostScript -driven GUIs instead of this Frankenstein HTML5/CSS/Javascript monster? Because the way I see it PS has the advantage of having been designed to address the HTML5/CSS issues (i.e. PS was intended for layout, whereas HTML was not)? Either way, I hope HTML5 dies. > In 10 years software development will recover things it managed to forget > now. Not for the first time. Remember how multi-tasking was forgotten when > PCs came? Microsoft "discovered" that decades later. Indeed; I find it slightly amusing that Ada's had tasking for 30 years and the C-type folks are bending over backwards trying to find not only "a way" to do it, but also "the right way." > > If someone can make an Ada to Javascript compiler, may be there > > is still a chance? > > Nope. Machine in the hands of a savage is scrap metal. Ah, come on; we have Ada compilers targeting the JVM, surely we can have some that target ECMA-Script. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-19 1:36 ` Shark8 @ 2012-05-19 2:02 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 2012-05-19 15:32 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 2012-05-19 5:07 ` tmoran ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 48+ messages in thread From: Nasser M. Abbasi @ 2012-05-19 2:02 UTC (permalink / raw) On 5/18/2012 8:36 PM, Shark8 wrote: > Either way, I hope HTML5 dies. oh no! not after I just ordered 3 books on HTML5 and a book on Javascript from amazon. > Ah, come on; we have Ada compilers targeting the JVM, surely > we can have some that target ECMA-Script. I hope someone actually can do this. similar to google's GWT : https://developers.google.com/web-toolkit/overview "The GWT SDK contains the Java API libraries, compiler, and development server. It lets you write client-side applications in Java and deploy them as JavaScript." hang on, I just got an idea: how about ada-to-java google GWT Ada---------------> Java -------------> Javascript---> Mobile! (we have this) .class Do not know if the above will work, as many details not clear, may be a brave person can try a "hello world" on the above. --Nasser ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-19 2:02 ` Nasser M. Abbasi @ 2012-05-19 15:32 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 0 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) @ 2012-05-19 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw) Le Sat, 19 May 2012 04:02:39 +0200, Nasser M. Abbasi <nma@12000.org> a écrit: > "The GWT SDK contains the Java API libraries, compiler, > and development server. It lets you write client-side > applications in Java and deploy them as JavaScript." > > hang on, I just got an idea: how about > > ada-to-java google GWT > Ada---------------> Java -------------> Javascript---> Mobile! > (we have this) .class Please, stop adding layers above layers! :-P (*). By the way, the target is not only mobile, it's anything. (*) and Google's Java to JS is a mess, and I know no good one, others are not better, typically another nth script language whose purpose is to be translatable to JS and optionally PHP or others, always with the same issues as with all scripting languages: no typing, not proper modularity, no “smart linking” (ending in nnnKb files for simple things), the “every thing is a class” trap, scale very badly (OK for tiny stuff, but when serious things begins, you have very hard times), and etc. -- “Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1] “Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1] [1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-19 1:36 ` Shark8 2012-05-19 2:02 ` Nasser M. Abbasi @ 2012-05-19 5:07 ` tmoran 2012-05-19 6:28 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2012-05-19 15:23 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: tmoran @ 2012-05-19 5:07 UTC (permalink / raw) > Indeed; I find it slightly amusing that Ada's had tasking for 30 years and = > the C-type folks are bending over backwards trying to find not only "a way"= > to do it, but also "the right way." I recently went to a local chapter ACM meeting with a speaker on "Threads and Shared Variables in C++11". Lots of examples of potential problems with shared variables and the main take-away seemed to be to be careful to use semaphores carefully. Sad. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-19 1:36 ` Shark8 2012-05-19 2:02 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 2012-05-19 5:07 ` tmoran @ 2012-05-19 6:28 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2012-05-19 15:23 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2012-05-19 6:28 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, 18 May 2012 18:36:11 -0700 (PDT), Shark8 wrote: > On Friday, May 18, 2012 3:35:11 PM UTC-5, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> On Fri, 18 May 2012 15:02:46 -0500, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: >> >>> If someone can make an Ada to Javascript compiler, may be there >>> is still a chance? >> >> Nope. Machine in the hands of a savage is scrap metal. > > Ah, come on; we have Ada compilers targeting the JVM, surely we can have > some that target ECMA-Script. Last time I checked they didn't support all Ada. But the point is that Ada does not fit into that picture. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-19 1:36 ` Shark8 ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2012-05-19 6:28 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2012-05-19 15:23 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) @ 2012-05-19 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Le Sat, 19 May 2012 03:36:11 +0200, Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com> a écrit: > On Friday, May 18, 2012 3:35:11 PM UTC-5, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> On Fri, 18 May 2012 15:02:46 -0500, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: >> >> > This is the new world order of software engineering. After 50 years >> > of computer science and programming languages research, the world has >> > decided it will be Javascript and HTML5. >> >> No. Due to opening a new market the technology (rather lack of) is >> returning to the point where it was 20-30 years ago. Such retreats >> always >> happen when there is no pressure to improve quality or safety. > > Does this mean we'll be having PostScript -driven GUIs instead of this > Frankenstein HTML5/CSS/Javascript monster? Because the way I see it PS > has the advantage of having been designed to address the HTML5/CSS > issues (i.e. PS was intended for layout, whereas HTML was not)? Obviously it was not, and it was on purpose. That's the role of CSS, not HTML and HTML5, which describes structures and basic semantics traits. The idea behind these web standards is the separation of presentation (Cascading *Style* Sheet) and semantic (HyperText *Markup* Language). > Either way, I hope HTML5 dies. Sorry, it surely won't ;-) Too much a Holy Grail for so much people all‑over the world. -- “Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1] “Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1] [1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 20:02 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 2012-05-18 20:35 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov @ 2012-05-19 13:44 ` Marco 2012-05-21 15:36 ` NatarovVI 2 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Marco @ 2012-05-19 13:44 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: nma On Friday, May 18, 2012 1:02:46 PM UTC-7, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote: > On 5/18/2012 2:43 PM, Mike Silva wrote: > > > > > Yeah, it gives off a vague sense that Ada is dying. > > > > It is not that Ada is dying (or Fortran or few others for that > matter), it is that all the developers are/have been moving to > the exciting new world of mobile and rich internet software > development, using HTML5 and Javascript. More "Angry Birds" just what the world needs there are other areas besides Mobile where most comp.lang.ada folks usually exist: Industrial - manufacturing, robots, etc Aerospace Medical ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-18 20:02 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 2012-05-18 20:35 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2012-05-19 13:44 ` Marco @ 2012-05-21 15:36 ` NatarovVI 2 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: NatarovVI @ 2012-05-21 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw) > It is not that Ada is dying (or Fortran or few others for that matter), > it is that all the developers are/have been moving to the exciting new > world of mobile and rich internet software development, using HTML5 and > Javascript. looks more like developers OR good OR "moves to exciting... html5 and javascript" )) > Windows 8 all new apps development is/will be in HTML5 and Javascript. > This is the new world order of software engineering. After 50 years of > computer science and programming languages research, the world has > decided it will be Javascript and HTML5. oh my... marketing say "we lead you to perfect new world"... again...)) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-05-17 1:25 Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers Jeffrey Carter 2012-05-18 4:17 ` Randy Brukardt @ 2012-06-21 11:28 ` Nicholas Paul Collin Gloucester 2012-06-21 12:05 ` Nicholas Paul Collin Gloucester 1 sibling, 1 reply; 48+ messages in thread From: Nicholas Paul Collin Gloucester @ 2012-06-21 11:28 UTC (permalink / raw) PowerAda from OC Systems AdaMagic ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
* Re: Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers 2012-06-21 11:28 ` Nicholas Paul Collin Gloucester @ 2012-06-21 12:05 ` Nicholas Paul Collin Gloucester 0 siblings, 0 replies; 48+ messages in thread From: Nicholas Paul Collin Gloucester @ 2012-06-21 12:05 UTC (permalink / raw) Oh, I forgot to mention MAXAda but I never had access to it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 48+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-06-21 12:05 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 48+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-05-17 1:25 Companies Only Offering Ada-95 Compilers Jeffrey Carter 2012-05-18 4:17 ` Randy Brukardt 2012-05-18 6:27 ` Jeffrey Carter 2012-05-18 11:11 ` Lucretia 2012-05-18 12:05 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 2012-05-20 8:12 ` Nomen Nescio 2012-05-20 9:15 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 2012-05-20 10:56 ` Simon Wright 2012-05-24 17:56 ` Simon Wright 2012-05-24 21:58 ` Nomen Nescio 2012-05-20 11:30 ` Simon Clubley 2012-05-21 2:24 ` Britt 2012-05-21 12:12 ` Simon Clubley 2012-05-22 12:01 ` Stephen Leake 2012-05-22 23:25 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 2012-05-24 1:12 ` Stephen Leake 2012-05-22 16:43 ` Nomen Nescio 2012-05-22 23:36 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 2012-05-23 12:16 ` Fritz Wuehler 2012-05-25 11:58 ` Simon Clubley 2012-05-23 1:00 ` Britt 2012-05-24 7:57 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 2012-05-23 21:44 ` Shark8 2012-05-24 1:14 ` Stephen Leake 2012-05-18 11:57 ` Martin 2012-05-18 13:40 ` Robert A Duff 2012-05-18 18:53 ` Shark8 2012-05-18 22:52 ` Robert A Duff 2012-05-18 23:03 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 2012-05-18 19:13 ` Jeffrey Carter 2012-05-18 19:43 ` Mike Silva 2012-05-18 20:02 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 2012-05-18 20:35 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2012-05-18 20:52 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 2012-05-18 21:07 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 2012-05-18 21:15 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2012-05-19 15:16 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 2012-05-21 15:46 ` NatarovVI 2012-05-19 1:36 ` Shark8 2012-05-19 2:02 ` Nasser M. Abbasi 2012-05-19 15:32 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 2012-05-19 5:07 ` tmoran 2012-05-19 6:28 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov 2012-05-19 15:23 ` Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) 2012-05-19 13:44 ` Marco 2012-05-21 15:36 ` NatarovVI 2012-06-21 11:28 ` Nicholas Paul Collin Gloucester 2012-06-21 12:05 ` Nicholas Paul Collin Gloucester
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox