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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,6bf1c4b845bd2160 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail From: =?iso-8859-15?Q?Yannick_Duch=EAne_=28Hibou57=29?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What about a glob standard method in Ada.Command_Line ? Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 22:34:38 +0200 Organization: Ada @ Home Message-ID: References: <4c7516f7$0$7664$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: M7h/q8CwRLjYoxj9M2D3+Q.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.61 (Win32) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13762 Date: 2010-08-26T22:34:38+02:00 List-Id: Le Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:29:07 +0200, a =E9crit: > The reason is that first > Adacore is the ONLY Ada vendor that has a current standard compiler No, there are many other. This is just there do not choose to re-run the= = validation process (I suppose for financial reasons, I do not know the = price at all). The validation process requires that passed an amount of time, a compile= r = must be validated again. These other providers still own the exact versi= on = of their compiler which successfully passed the validation process. Abov= e = that, users of these compilers can them self run a particular ACAT test = as = they want, as this set of testes if publicly available. The compiler vendor may do the same as well : running CAT testes on its = = product, without formally running a real validation (I still suppose for= = economical or timing reason). The reason which make GNAT more visible than others, is the dual license= : = there is GNAT Pro and GNAT GPL (in short). Others has only commercial = licenses. The other reason is that GNAT was originally funded by an = university program. Others was not (and this helped GNAT a lot). GNAT is more visible, but not a monopoly and does not seems to me to hav= e = any attempt to this way. And some vendors, like SoftCheck, are unlikely to let this kind of thing= = occurs without shouting a bit I feel. > Second, all other Ada vendors have decided not to upgrade their Ada > compilers to the current standard. Client matters. Although the latest version of the standard is Ada 2005,= = and the nearly born one is Ada 2012, big projects still ask for Ada 95, = = which is the most widely used Ada standard. Think of others using Ada 20= 05 = or 2012, as hider testers, pioneers, little companies with more = flexibility, standalone users, students, and so on. Other areas has other requirements, and many Ada providers just have the= se = companies as clients. > Some may start the upgrade but they > are not fully Ada 2007 complaint! Ada 207 ? > So, the only active Ada vendor is > Adacore, its just like IBM, is the only active vendor for PL/1. No. Have a look at this: http://www.adaic.org/compilers/comp-tool.html and this: http://www.adaic.org/links/tools.html > Also, > if you visit SGI, SUN, or others hardware/software companies who had > there own Ada compiler back in the 1980 .. 1990s and look for a curren= t > version of the Ada compiler they will redirect you to Adacore's GNAT. Lnks to some pages please ? > So, Adacore has become a Monopoly legally, because others have chosen > not to taken an active role in the Ada language any more by maintainin= g a > current standard that is usable by the current systems. Yes, Randy = > Brukardt > from RRSoftware is a member of ARG but Janus Ada is Ada 95 only for Wi= n > 95/98. It might work under Windows 7 but how many people are going to = buy > the compiler just to find out because as we all know once open install= ed > there's a no returns policy. Randy may reply you better, but I would like to say that if RRSoftware d= o = not provide an Ada compiler for other platform, this is not due to a = supposed monopoly, this is simply because an Ada compiler is a lot of = work, and RRSoftware may just have less people working on this. > So, you either accept Adacore's GNAT "as is" or pay $15K plus to Janus Ada is far less than $15K. If you want something cheaper, you have= a = choice. If you want to target other platform, like UNIXes, BSDs, embedde= d = CPUs, you also have a choice. > Adacore for support and have the right to talk about accepting your > package as apart of the next standard. Silly. Look at Ada issues, these are full of submissions from various = peoples. Recently Jean-Pierre Rosen suggested I could send a submit a ti= ny = proposition for the next standard. I am not at all a member of AdaCore. > And for others on the list of > WG9, they may vote but when Adacore, disagree, what are they going > to do there is no other vendor to chose. So, aka Adacore rules Ada. Were you present at one of their meeting to state that ? Once again, look at Ada issues, and you will see: http://ada-auth.org/ais.html > And in the US to be a voting member of WG9 a sub of the ISO you must > be a member of ANSI. Other countries have there own version of the > standards process that sooner or later you will have to pay a annual > fee. You may have to pay fee to be member of some local standard office membe= r. = That is true, but this does not imply no body else can suggest this and = = that comment about the standard. > Also, the voting member of WG9 are chosen by the national > delegations of that country, and in the US that is Robert Dewar of > AdaCore. Do not know about that, so will not tell anything. > All this means is that Adacore has too much control of Ada and the Ada= > Standards, for a language they did not create. No. AdaCore is not under control of the standard, you did not demonstrat= ed = this. Just look at the copyrights on the Ada 2005 standard: http://www.adaic.org/standards/05rm/html/RM-TTL.html > Some of the major member of WG9 (as of 2009): > Note: Spark Ada (Ada vendor) is not on the list. SPARK, an Ada vendor ? Are serious ? > Ada Vendors -- ( to most the only votes that counts ) > * Randall Brukardt -- R.R. Software, Inc., USA > * Robert Dewar -- AdaCore, USA > * Greg Gicca -- AdaCore, USA > * Nasser Kettani -- Rational Software France, France ( IBM ) > > Special Ada Interest > * Clyde Roby -- Institute for Defense Analyses, USA (DoD) > > Special Designer Interest > * Stephen Michell -- Maurya Software, Inc. Canada > (Secuity, SRG) > * Sally Seitz -- ANSI, USA > > 12 Professors (Worldwide) > 19 Others interested parties > * Jean-Pierre Rosen -- Adalog, france > You forget the ISO! And your forget to mention all unknown peoples, [tiny|big] compagnies, = hobbyst, students, who sent or will send their own comment to ada-auth. -- = * 3 lines of concise statements is readable, 10 pages of concise = statements is unreadable ; * 3 lines of verbose statements may looks unuseful, 10 pages of verbose = = statements will never looks too much pedantic