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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-13 16:37:45 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news2.euro.net!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!proxad.net!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: "Alexander E. Kopilovich" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 03:32:03 +0400 (MSD) Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1081899089 87505 212.85.156.195 (13 Apr 2004 23:31:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:31:29 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: ; from "Dmitry A. Kazakov" at Tue, 13 Apr 2004 12:55:52 +0200 X-Mailer: Mail/@ [v2.44 MSDOS] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7065 Date: 2004-04-14T03:32:03+04:00 Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > > As for your statement that VMS could be implemented on any platform, this > > is simply false. For example, do you really think that VMS could be > > implemented on early IBM PC (with 8086, 640 Kb memory and 5-10 Mb disk)? > > Or, 20 years later, on Palm handhelds? > > To your knowledge, I worked under RSX-11M running on a machine, which had > 256K RAM, 2 x 1.5Mb HD disks and sort of 0.3MHz. That machine supported 2 > interactive users. No problem with that, assuming that your disks weren't fixed (so you may change cassetes), you had technicians not far away from the computer, and your applications were of particular domain (one of those domains targetted by PDP-11). I developed (well, I was the team leader of a small team) software for taxi call center on and for very similar machine (disks became bigger after some time), and it was running successfully for several years (about 10-15 terminals active in peak periods - that time there was only one taxi call center for 5-million Leningrad). But I asked you not about RSX-11M, and even not about RSX-11M-PLUS, but about VMS. And not on PDP-11 (which, after all, had memory dispatcher, and even I-D space for some models), but on early IBM PC or Palm handhelds. > >> the best hardware, > > > > It is disputable. Good doesn't mean the best. My own impression after > > reading VAX hardware handbook was that the instruction set (as well as > > some particular instructions) is overcomplicated. That gorgeous > > instruction set was perhaps justified by the targetted application domain, > > which I thought was CADs, but nevertheless I don't see a reason to call > > this hardware architecture "the best". > > Just compare PDP-11 instruction set with other CISCs like x86 or Motorola. Why should I compare it with x86 or Motorola? I naturally compared it with IBM/370, and I was not very happy with that transition. I understood, though, that targetted application domains are different, and that justified the difference in architectures. I also compared it with HP minis, and found PDP-11 architecture much more attractive and powerful. >[VAX instruction set is an extension of PDP-11.] Yes, but very far fetched extension. And some elements of that extension seemed doubful to me. > Actually, MACRO-11 > (PDP/VAX assembler) was a higher level language than C. I believe that > PDP-11 instruction set was rewarded in a contest as the best one. I guess that you was raised as a programmer on PDP-11. What you just said is quite typical to programmers for whom PDP-11 was first computer to which they obtain real access. My impression was quite different, as I compared Macro-11 with IBM Assembler H. > IBM PL/1 was not that good, because different > compiler modes implemented different language subsets. I don't know what you mean here: PL/I Optimizer and PL/I Checkout were quite compatible with each other. If you mean PL/I F then it is improper comparison, because PL/I F was considered obsolete after release of PL/I Optimizer. But if you actually mean some compiler modes for PL/I Optimizer then I can't recall what they could be, and what could be bad with different language subsets (if they constitute a tower). > I never had any > problems with DEC Fortran IV. It was excellent. I said nothing against DEC Fortran IV, I just said that was not better than IBM Fortran H. > As for DEC C and DEC Ada > they were definitively the best at that time. Perhaps. As far as I know IBM did not develop own compilers for this languages that time, so there were no competitors (in compilers) of equal or bigger weight. > >> The system worked first for > >> UNIX and then Microsoft, because latter were even worse than UNIX. > > > > You continue to ignore the fact that the population of users was radically > > changed. It is your beloved market, with which aristocracy/nobility > > naturally faded as the market widened. > > As I said, the problem is that the marked, beloved or not, does not work > well for software. Hm, but for what is works better? For science? For fims? For literature? > This is the only reason why even less beloved government > should intervene. Because software is essential to the future of humankind. So you think (applying the same logic) that government should intervene in science, in some arts and all other matters which we (or it) find essential to humankind. By the way, from where you know about the future of humankind? Did you have a revelation? > >> And MS in its early days was heavyweight? > > > > MS in its early days was fully backed by IBM, didn't you know? > > You mean that IBM invested in MS? It is hard to believe that you know absolutely nothing about early story of MS-DOS. Windows and OS/2. But if it so then I'm not going to tell you that story - it is too well-known, just consult the Net. > >> > There are much more important issues in the case. For > >> > example, will be car vendors required to publish full sources of the > >> > software used in their cars? > >> > >> What for? To laugh at? > > > > There are enough people in the world who know cars and at the same have > > some programmer skills. Some of them may become interested in studying > > those sources (of their own car's software, for example). It may > > constitute very significant resource for finding remaining bugs and > > glitches. > > So the system of that complexity should be controlled by a crowd of > hobbists? Controlled? Is GNAT controlled by the crowd of hobbyists who have an easy opportunity to read its sources? But anyway, in the case of cars, I'd like to tell you that in that crowd of hobbyists, easily can happen people who are more skilled in software, and even in complex software, than the software engineering personnel that developed the car's software. Those skilled people may have an interesting reason to look at the sources: they may own the car. Just as Boeing engineer may become interested in some construction details of a small piston single airplane, which he owns. Imagine that, say, a Cisco engineer or former DEC engineer becomes suspecting that some sporadic trouble in his own car is caused by a software glitch. Then, there are graduate students (EE and CS), and some part of them are already better skilled then some part of that car software development personnel - and they also often own cars. Alexander Kopilovich aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia