Just Passing By

["Andrew Carroll" <andrew@carroll-tech.net>]

> ------------------------------
> Message: 2
> From: Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
> Subject: Re: Just Passing By
>
> Andrew Carroll <andrew@carroll-tech.net> wrote:
> : Rational?  It's currently written in C, need I say more?
>
> Yes, definitely. Just imagine the following situational parameters:
[snip]
>   of bindings to existing software? Can C programs use AdaBIND?
As Ludovic recognized, Georg, you sound like a GREAT candidate for the
project.


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message: 1
> From: I R T <rambam@bigpond.net.au>
> Subject: Re: Just Passing By
>
[snip]

> Bind works well.
Good, it should!

> Who is likely to use AdaBIND ?
If I knew, then I would not have to answer your next question.

> Why waste time and resources if you are just going to reinvent the
wheel ?
Ask Microsoft.

> If you are just going to do bind in ada, why bother ?
It allows Ada developers to write network code in Ada, based on an Ada
implementation of BIND.  "Porting" BIND to Ada will help me, and maybe
others, better understand Ada and BIND.  Also, isn't there an Ada
operating system coming out soon?  In 2005 isn't it?  I'm sure that they
will want to include the C version of BIND over the Ada version right?
Not that they will choose our product, or our product over the umpteen
other BIND products written in Ada.  I mean, who cares right?  BIND
works well.  Just pick one.


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Message: 1
> From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
> Subject: Re: Improving Ada's image - Was: 7E7 Flight Controls
>
[snip]
> You still don't understand. The common attitude around here
> is that people who choose C and C++ are stupid, misguided,
> and wrong. Look at the current thread on rewriting BIND in
> Ada - someone asks why, and the response is that the original
> is written in C, and isn't that enough of a reason?

I don't have a 'facetious' font.  Sorry.  Never the less, point taken.
I also agree with your statement about vaporware.  I, we, need to put up
or shut up.

I'm just trying to get "something" going.  I like the idea of AdaBIND
because of AdaOS.  If AdaOS is dead then again, more vaporware and more
wasted time.  In fact, if AdaOS is dead then I'll probably switch back
to C and C++.  Heck, I might even learn C#.

The things I see that "Ada" lacks are:
A "business" structure
Integrated SOAP, UDDI, WSDL, XML functionality (GUI builder or not)(aka
Web Services)
WindowsCE, Palm and handheld tools (not some cryptic "yac", a tool for
the simple minded, like me!)
Innovative approaches to distributing products
Games, games and more games
Office tools
Innovative, secure Internet tools  (well, besides AWS)
Apps, apps and more apps
INVESTORS
among others

I'm sure there are a lot of GREAT Ada products I left out of the list
above.  Sorry for not mentioning them.

Well, gotta go.

Andrew