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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: a new language, designed for safety ! Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 17:06:28 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <1402308235.2520.153.camel@pascal.home.net> <85ioo9yukk.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <255b51cd-b23f-4413-805a-9fea3c70d8b2@googlegroups.com> <1129440363424130728.266844laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1404338788 18119 69.95.181.76 (2 Jul 2014 22:06:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 22:06:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:20687 Date: 2014-07-02T17:06:28-05:00 List-Id: "J-P. Rosen" wrote in message news:logs26$5sl$1@dont-email.me... > Le 26/06/2014 00:40, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) a écrit : >>> I have similar concerns now they are the ones 'controlling' the future >>> is >>> ASIS, as there's no external agency defining the packages, [.] >> >> Isn't it an ISO standard? Or it isn't anymore? > There is a standard for Ada 95. There was a decision not to make a > standard for Ada 2005, now that Ada2012 is out. > > The ARG decided to standardize existing practice rather than try > inventing. There should be a standard, but only after it is stabilized > on the side of the providers (TBH: AdaCore). But AdaCore developments > are made available to some members of the ARG (!) to check that they are > acceptable. Since the vendors were ignoring what the ARG was trying to do, and there is very little use of "standard" ASIS anyway (most applications only work with one implementation -- we really only need a standard for applications that will be ported from one implementation to another), it isn't worth anyone's effort to make a standard. Vendors claim that their customers don't care about a standard for ASIS. If ASIS customers were to demand that their vendors supported a standard, then things would be different, but there is no evidence of that (beyond Mr. Rosen -- which is surely not enough). The ASIS 95 standard is quite a mess; it wouldn't be possible to create an ASIS implementation just from reading the standard. One would have to see what other implementations do. (That's true to some extent for all standards, but the ASIS standard is worse. And, at least for the Ada standard we have the ACATS to provide some additional insight into what a correct implementation needs to do.) Randy.