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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,be23df8e7e275d73 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-06 09:58:14 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Proving Correctness (was Java Portability) Date: 06 Aug 2001 12:37:08 -0400 Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Message-ID: References: <9jrt62$38t$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B619A6D.5DD6E782@home.com> <3B6636BA.96FD8348@home.com> <9kb3ub$hdo$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <9kchn1$lng$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <9kea9a$lsc$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9keduf$qvc$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <9kelv1$riq$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 997115836 25438 128.183.220.71 (6 Aug 2001 16:37:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: dscoggin@cne-odin.gsfc.nasa.gov NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Aug 2001 16:37:16 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11393 Date: 2001-08-06T16:37:16+00:00 List-Id: "nicolas" writes: > "Pascal Obry" a �crit dans le message news: > ulmkxuy80.fsf@wanadoo.fr... > > Sorry but I'm very upset by your mail. If nobody does the job the job wont > > gets done that it ! > I'll start to reply your last remark. > There is absolutely no attack about this XML library. It's great to have it > for students and Gnat users. > > But we were talking about standard and portable libraries designed to be > independant of compilers. > This is what Ada is designed for. This is about what Ada users are giving > lessons to everybody. > George gave me this XML library as an example to show that this type of > library is available. > > This is not the case. ok; you have one example of one library that is not compiler-portable. > > > Right. So ask you vendor to adapt an Open Source component or sell an > > equivalent component. > > All the thread is about the fact that this is not an option and goes against > Ada promotion > Ada is designed to write code as much as possible independant from platforms > and compilers. > An XML library has nothing specific to a platform or a compiler. > You can develop one with code totally independant of the compiler, and there > is no reason to do otherwise. > > You may ask why we didn't develop that ourseleves : it is for very simple > reasons. > - We are not paid for that > - Java does it much better. How many Java libraries are portable across _different_ Java implemntations, from _different_ vendors? I don't follow closely, but I seem to remember that even Sun's libraries are not portable across different Sun implementations of Java. So what are we comparing to here? > It's clear to me that a standard library shouldn't have to be adapted to > each compiler. That is a desirable goal. We are discussing how to get there. Clearly, the first version of a library might be compiler dependent. If the people developing the library want compiler independence, they have to put in some effort. I don't see how Ada is any different from C++ in this regard. Can you use MS Foundation classes in the Borland C++ environment, with complete portability? I don't think so. > We have more than 1 million lines of Ada code and are very careful > to have them compiler independant. That's the least you can expect > from an Ada library. Well, maybe its the least _you_ expect :). I have different expectations. > I strongly believe that the lack of standard available library you can use > 'as it is' without any modification, whatever compiler you use, goes against > Ada rationale ... I agree. But that doesn't mean it's a point against Ada, in favor of Java or C++. > I don't care who should do it .... I'm a user and like any other user I > choose the best tool available for my needs. > If ACT does everything to force Ada world to be dependant of Gnat compiler, > it is ACT's decision. Shades of Microsoft, don't you think? Works for them :). > But I think it could kill Ada, and therefore ACT ... Obviously, they disagree. It's their jobs on the line, I expect they know better. > > Let me add that we have tried in AWS to be compiler independant > > (see AWS.OS_Lib) but since 2 or 3 releases this is not true > > anymore. I don't > have the time to try on all available > > compilers, the GNAT library is so nice > that I just can't bypass > > it (GNAT.Regexp for example). So yes now AWS is mostly working > > with GNAT... But I'd love to see others porting some stuff to be > > > able to avoid this dependences :) > > I think it's a dead-end if everybody does his own job specific for his own > tools, and wait for others to adapt it for others tools. > This shows all the limitations of the process. Yes. So what is a better process? > We are giving to others languages users, all what they need, to be > convinced that Ada users are themselves unable to stick to what they > promote. If you can't bypass GNAT.Regexp, obviously GNAT.Regexp > should be in the set of standard libraries, it shouldn't be named > GNAT, and should be available as it is for any compiler. Once again > Ada users give strong lessons to the rest of the world, and do > exactly the opposite in practice ... Ok. How do we make that happen? ACT isn't going to do it without some monetary return; that's what businesses do. -- -- Stephe