Re: Ada Dot Net ?

["Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" <aek@vib.usr.pu.ru>]

"WJT" <bthomas@aisvt.bfg.com> wrote:
>The reason I want to know is that I have been developing in C# lately. I
>started using the command line compiler that comes free with the SDK. And
>believe it or not I was generating some impressive GUI applications using
>nothing more than a text editor. I do not attribute this to the superiority
>of the C# language, I attribute it to the Common Language Runtime (CLR) and
>its class libraries that make Windows programming .... well, actually
>enjoyable.

That your excitement clearly shows that you have no previous experience with
Borland Delphi. Well. it isn't suprising that the chief architect of Delphi,
and the author of C#, and probably one of the main architectcs of the .NET is
the same person.

>The entire OS (or 99% of it) is available as an OO class library!

This is a huge overstatement, I think. It may be so for major part of GUI and
some broad classes of services, but very far from "entire OS".

>The real reason that I would like to have an Ada95 compiler on such a
>platform (and hopefully developed as a plug-in for MS Visual Studio) is
>well...just because. Because I've dedicated over 20 years of my life to the
>little lady (mostly using her in embedded systems) and would really like to
>see here catch the boat this time.

This isn't a technical reason. And Ada tries to follow the technical reasons.

>I know what I want, and I know what is needed.

Well, then, perhaps, you can express that in technical terms?

>P.S. Just for the record, when it comes to Cross Compilers for Embedded
>Systems nothing in the industry even comes close to Ada, not even close. Ada
>has made programming large real-time embedded systems an absolute pleasure,
>a pure joy compared to any other language in existence !!!

Well, good. Every programming language has its "virtual machine", sometimes
more or less specified explicitly, sometimes hidden. Ada is unique (at least
among the standartized languages) in that respect: there are TWO different
virtual machines - one for a host, and another for a target. And when you
speak about CLR you touch the target virtual machine, while when you speak
about Visual Studio plug-in, you touch the host virtual machine.
  It isn't clear from your speech, which one you consider most important to be
plugged to the .NET .

Wes Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com> wrote:
>.Net and C# are basically an attempt to make a
>Microsoft-controlled alternative to Java.

That may be partially true, but notice, that "Microsoft-controlled" is
secondary, while "alternative to Java" is primary, and very desirable thing
- not for Microsoft only.

>I'd like to see Ada on .Net, but I know that
>Gates & Co. will do everything they can get away
>with to make it incompatible with any other Ada,
>just like they did with Java.

This surely will be so for Microsoft Visual Ada++, but not for an independent
vendor, For example,

"WJT" <bthomas@aisvt.bfg.com> wrote:
>The Ada95 language definition has enough flexibility to fit on the .Net
>platform through the use of  'allowable and documented restrictions',
>implementation defined attributes, pragmas and of course there is always
>implementation specific packages.

Ada95 does not have enough flexibility to fit immediately on a platform which
have many vaguely specified but still powerful features. Don't forget, that
Microsoft always stands for "freedom for innovation", which effectively means
"no guarantee for any feature".


Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia