RE: Why isn't there Visual Ada?

RE: Why isn't there Visual Ada?

[Beard, Frank]

We're running Windows NT 4.0 SP 6a.

-----Original Message-----
From: Florian Weimer [mailto:fw@deneb.enyo.de]
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 1:51 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Why isn't there Visual Ada?


"Beard, Frank" <beardf@spawar.navy.mil> writes:

> One limitation I have run into with the Enterprise Edition is I
> can't display a 50K message in a Textbox.  Only about 20K of it
> shows up.

This is probably a limit of the consumer version of Windows.
_______________________________________________
comp.lang.ada mailing list
comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada

Re: Why isn't there Visual Ada?

[John English]

"Beard, Frank" wrote:
> 
> We're running Windows NT 4.0 SP 6a.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Florian Weimer [mailto:fw@deneb.enyo.de]
> > "Beard, Frank" <beardf@spawar.navy.mil> writes:
> > 
> > One limitation I have run into with the Enterprise Edition is I
> > can't display a 50K message in a Textbox.  Only about 20K of it
> > shows up.
> 
> This is probably a limit of the consumer version of Windows.

A standard editbox has a 32K limit (son of Windows 3.1); a "rich edit"
control has a 4G limit, and a whole bunch of different problems... ;-)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
 John English              | mailto:je@brighton.ac.uk
 Senior Lecturer           | http://www.comp.it.bton.ac.uk/je
 Dept. of Computing        | ** NON-PROFIT CD FOR CS STUDENTS **
 University of Brighton    |    -- see http://burks.bton.ac.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Why isn't there Visual Ada?

[Robert Love]

>>>>> "LK" == Larry Kilgallen <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> writes:


    LK> What do you find missing from the ObjectAda product ?

A Linux version.

-- 
=============================================================
| Support Signature Minimalism                              |
=============================================================

Re: Why isn't there Visual Ada?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <732FACF8BF7E8D79.8125E7BE5B617E0B.B3DBC49334E8E3C4@lp.airnews.net>, Robert Love <rlove@neosoft.com> writes:
>>>>>> "LK" == Larry Kilgallen <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> writes:
> 
> 
>     LK> What do you find missing from the ObjectAda product ?
> 
> A Linux version.

I didn't know there was a Visual C++ for Linux.

Linux is a little harder than Windows because there are so many
different hardware architectures to support.

Re: Why isn't there Visual Ada?

[Tomas Brixi]

"Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> wrote in message
news:Q8cJw$sOAAHD@eisner.decus.org...
> In article
<732FACF8BF7E8D79.8125E7BE5B617E0B.B3DBC49334E8E3C4@lp.airnews.net>, Robert
Love <rlove@neosoft.com> writes:
> >>>>>> "LK" == Larry Kilgallen <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> writes:
> >
> >
> >     LK> What do you find missing from the ObjectAda product ?
> >
> > A Linux version.
>
> I didn't know there was a Visual C++ for Linux.

Moreover Visual C++ is not so "visual" as it announce itself :-)
(comparing to e.g. c++ builder)

Re: Why isn't there Visual Ada?

[Buz Cory]

On 1/27/01, 6:47:58 PM, Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry 
Kilgallen) wrote regarding Re: Why isn't there Visual Ada?:

> In article
>    
<732FACF8BF7E8D79.8125E7BE5B617E0B.B3DBC49334E8E3C4@lp.airnews.net>,
>    Robert Love <rlove@neosoft.com> writes:
> "LK" == Larry Kilgallen <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> writes:

> > > LK> What do you find missing from the ObjectAda product ?

> > A Linux version.

> I didn't know there was a Visual C++ for Linux.

There isn't, but who cares on *this* forum? :=}}

> Linux is a little harder than Windows because there are so many
> different hardware architectures to support.

Actually, several Free Software projects have reported that release of 
a
new version was delayed by porting the product to M$-Vindows. :=)

Further, if you are not diddling with the hardware (as you shouldn't 
be),
then porting to *any* version of X/Linux from *any* other should be no
harder than copying the package (as in distro) to the desired platform
and typing "make". X and Linux worry about the architecture.

== Buz :)

--
Buz Cory of BuzCo Systems -- New York NY USA 
http://BuzCo.PenguinPowered.com
<toolmakr@BuzCo.PenguinPowered.com> (Buz as gen'l Programmer)
write to <helpdesk@BuzCo.PenguinPowered.com> for FREE help with:
    Installing/Configuring Linux
    Getting started with the Ada Programming Language.
Friends don't let friends do DOS; Linux to the rescue!

Re: Why isn't there Visual Ada?

[David Starner]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 15:58:10 GMT, Buz Cory <weltseer@BuzCo.PenguiPowered.com> 
wrote:
>Further, if you are not diddling with the hardware (as you shouldn't=20
>be),

If you're writing a compiler, you have to.

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and 
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg

Re: Why isn't there Visual Ada?

[Florian Weimer]

dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu (David Starner) writes:

> >Further, if you are not diddling with the hardware (as you shouldn't=20
> >be),
> 
> If you're writing a compiler, you have to.

Huh?  I've never seen a compiler that performs direct hardware access.
Compilers are usually the most portable pieces of software in common
use because they only translate one text file to another.  Porting
compilers to a new host is usually not very hard (however, adding a
new target is a completely different story ;).

Re: Why isn't there Visual Ada?

[Florian Weimer]

Buz Cory <weltseer@BuzCo.PenguiPowered.com> writes:

> Further, if you are not diddling with the hardware (as you shouldn't
> be), then porting to *any* version of X/Linux from *any* other
> should be no harder than copying the package (as in distro) to the
> desired platform and typing "make". X and Linux worry about the
> architecture.

A lot of software which has been developed on a GNU/Linux system
assumes a little-endian machine with pointers and C ints which are 32
bits wide, and that the hardware does not require any alignment for
the standard types.

Re: Why isn't there Visual Ada?

[David Starner]

On 08 Feb 2001 10:54:06 +0100, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
>A lot of software which has been developed on a GNU/Linux system
>assumes a little-endian machine with pointers and C ints which are 32
>bits wide, and that the hardware does not require any alignment for
>the standard types.

A lot of software? Pretty much anything shipped with Debian or RedHat has
been compiled and probably run on Alphas and other architectures. 

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and 
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg

Re: Why isn't there Visual Ada?

[Florian Weimer]

dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu (David Starner) writes:

> On 08 Feb 2001 10:54:06 +0100, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> >A lot of software which has been developed on a GNU/Linux system
> >assumes a little-endian machine with pointers and C ints which are 32
> >bits wide, and that the hardware does not require any alignment for
> >the standard types.
> 
> A lot of software? Pretty much anything shipped with Debian or RedHat has
> been compiled and probably run on Alphas and other architectures. 

This is just a fraction in comparison to what is announced via
channels like Freshmeat.

Re: Why isn't there Visual Ada?

[David Starner]

On 08 Feb 2001 21:32:50 +0100, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
>dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu (David Starner) writes:
>
>> On 08 Feb 2001 10:54:06 +0100, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
>> >A lot of software which has been developed on a GNU/Linux system
>> >assumes a little-endian machine with pointers and C ints which are 32
>> >bits wide, and that the hardware does not require any alignment for
>> >the standard types.
>> 
>> A lot of software? Pretty much anything shipped with Debian or RedHat has
>> been compiled and probably run on Alphas and other architectures. 
>
>This is just a fraction in comparison to what is announced via
>channels like Freshmeat.

But it's a large fraction, and more important, it's one selected (at least
on Debian) for the property of being interesting. The original quote was
"if _you_ are not diddling with the hardware ... then porting to *any*
version of X/Linux from *any* other _should_ be no harder than copying
the package ... to the desired platform and typing 'make'." (Underlines mine.)
The fact that some beginning programmers rewriting some basic project make
elementary mistakes (that would happen on any platform, and any low-level
language like C or Ada) does not mean that you should make them.

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and 
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg

Re: Why isn't there Visual Ada?

[Tarjei T. Jensen]

David Starner wrote
>Florian Weimer wrote:
>>A lot of software which has been developed on a GNU/Linux system
>>assumes a little-endian machine with pointers and C ints which are 32
>>bits wide, and that the hardware does not require any alignment for
>>the standard types.
>
>A lot of software? Pretty much anything shipped with Debian or RedHat has
>been compiled and probably run on Alphas and other architectures.

It does not neccessarily mean that the software work in 64 bit mode. Many, if
not all 64 bit machines support a 32 bit pointer environment with 32 bit
integers.


Greetings,

Re: Why isn't there Visual Ada?

[David Starner]

On Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:31:11 +0100, Tarjei T. Jensen 
<tarjei.jensen@kvaerner.com> wrote:
>
>David Starner wrote
>>
>>A lot of software? Pretty much anything shipped with Debian or RedHat has
>>been compiled and probably run on Alphas and other architectures.
>
>It does not neccessarily mean that the software work in 64 bit mode. Many, if
>not all 64 bit machines support a 32 bit pointer environment with 32 bit
>integers.

Debian does not compile its Alpha packages in that mode. (I don't believe
an Alpha has that mode, or even if it does, that GCC for the alpha-linux-gnu
supports using it. So I doubt Red Hat uses it either.)

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and 
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg

Re: Why isn't there Visual Ada?

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <9612vb$9aa1@news.cis.okstate.edu>, dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu (David Starner) writes:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:31:11 +0100, Tarjei T. Jensen 
> <tarjei.jensen@kvaerner.com> wrote:
>>
>>David Starner wrote
>>>
>>>A lot of software? Pretty much anything shipped with Debian or RedHat has
>>>been compiled and probably run on Alphas and other architectures.
>>
>>It does not neccessarily mean that the software work in 64 bit mode. Many, if
>>not all 64 bit machines support a 32 bit pointer environment with 32 bit
>>integers.
> 
> Debian does not compile its Alpha packages in that mode. (I don't believe
> an Alpha has that mode, or even if it does, that GCC for the alpha-linux-gnu
> supports using it. So I doubt Red Hat uses it either.)

Alpha has no 32 bit addressing mode in hardware.  A compiler that
is going to use 32 bit pointers will generate code that sign-extends
the 32 bit pointer when loading it into a 64-bit register.