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-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8893269a4640c798 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-24 13:30:33 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: terminate applications Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:32:12 -0500 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <3F17DF3C.4080204@noplace.com> <3F196773.2060809@noplace.com> <3F19F86C.9050808@attbi.com> <3F1A772F.9060708@noplace.com> <3F1AD6FB.8080806@attbi.com> <3F1BD666.6040506@noplace.com> <3F1C4DA6.3070405@attbi.com> <3F1D29E8.60107@noplace.com> <3F1D2FDC.1070402@noplace.com> <3F1DC75A.5050300@noplace.com> <87oezm9lar.fsf@inf.enst.fr> <3F1E7E1E.8090302@noplace.com> <3F1FC849.8070202@noplace.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40775 Date: 2003-07-24T15:32:12-05:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:3F1FC849.8070202@noplace.com... > If most OS's provide a given feature, there ought to be a way for an Ada > program to utilize that feature in a standard way. Worrying about the > fact that some OS provided feature might not fit in with Ada's desired > safety and security is what is going to guarantee that programmers are > going to do end-runs around Ada to use the C/C++ library that *will* > give them the feature - and eventually decide that its too much of a > nuisance to be programming in both Ada and C and revert to C. I agree that common operations from the OS ought to be supported in a standard way. But I disagree that that includes dangerous operations. Don't you think that if the standard Ada library provided a safe Halt routine, people would use that, and 98% of the time, it would be perfectly adaquate? I cannot remember a case (either from us or from our users) where someone said that System.Util.Halt was too slow or hung. Similarly, if Ada provided "safe" libraries of OS operations, don't you think people would use them? Do you really think that people would say that such-and-such an operation is safe, so I won't use it? Why should we go on propagating the mistakes of our forefathers? The functionality is the important point, not the exact form or details. If you don't believe that - if you believe that Ada can't be object-oriented because it doesn't declare "class"es, for instance - then you SHOULD be using C++. Ada has nothing to offer you then. We should stick with "safe", well-defined operations in the standard Ada library. After all, people will use those first. If they absolutely have to use an unsafe operation, fine, but they'll have to do it by a direct interface to the OS (making the OS dependence clear). (For what's its worth, the C Exit is a safe exit -- for C. It does lots of finalization activities before it actually exits. Why should Ada be different in that regard?) Randy.