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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,be23df8e7e275d73
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-07 02:06:40 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!148.122.208.68!news2.oke.nextra.no!nextra.com!news3.oke.nextra.no.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Leif Roar Moldskred <lrm@huldreheim.provida.no>
Subject: Re: Proving Correctness (was Java Portability)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <mailman.995648003.8404.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
   <9kchn1$lng$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <R1ta7.4077$ke.4769807@nnrp6.proxad.net> <9kea9a$lsc$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <9keduf$qvc$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <Reza7.18403$px7.4304991@nnrp1.proxad.net>
 <9kelv1$riq$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <dVsb7.5035$2i4.5346431@nnrp6.proxad.net> <ulmkxuy80.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <bFxb7.6327$bO7.5653610@nnrp6.proxad.net> <un15dgn63.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>
 <JHNb7.7167$2j2.5927018@nnrp6.proxad.net>
User-Agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX)
 (Linux/2.2.17-21mdk (i686))
Message-ID: <kcOb7.4612$e%4.140534@news3.oke.nextra.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.18.231.130
X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@nextra.no
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 11:06:24 MEST
Organization: Nextra Public Access
X-Trace: news3.oke.nextra.no 997175184 195.18.231.130
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 09:06:24 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11470
Date: 2001-08-07T09:06:24+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

nicolas <n.brunot@cadwin.com> wrote:

> The fact is that we were looking standard ones which are ...
> This one was proposed, it is not ...

Well, yes - but what _other_ language than Java has an _XML library_
that's standard, and portable across all compilers? 

Sure, it would be a Good Thing To Have (tm), but aren't you setting
somewhat high demands? XML is a new technology, after all - and it
takes time to make a hard standard.

And Java does have advantages here that Ada does not - the fact that a
library for Java only have to target one platform: the java virtual
machine. 

And, strictly on gut-feeling since I'm not familiar with Sun's
practices here, I suspect that a standard library for Ada would need
(possibly much) more stringent specifications than what's common for Java.

(And to wouldn't an official Ada standard library have to go through
the ISO standardization process as well?)


Leif Roar Moldskred
wondering