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-Thread: 103376,cae92f92d6a1d4b1 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada.Execution_Time Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:24:35 -0500 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <4d05e737$0$6980$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <1wmsukf0wglz3$.odnzonrpayly.dlg@40tude.net> <6n1c5myuf2uz$.10jl3ln7il3aq.dlg@40tude.net> <8n0mgnFv2sU1@mid.individual.net> <1n3o55xjdjr9t.1u33kb75y2jfl$.dlg@40tude.net> <8n1142Fto2U1@mid.individual.net> <1o5cbm4b1l20d$.19winbma6k5qw.dlg@40tude.net> <8n4mskF7mmU1@mid.individual.net> <8nm30fF7r9U1@mid.individual.net> <1akm5muxu9zni.mu91b7pubqw0$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1293470676 670 192.74.137.71 (27 Dec 2010 17:24:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 17:24:36 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix) Cancel-Lock: sha1:WF3G2iYJ5cmrc+/AdWp5+oyTfrs= Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:17129 Date: 2010-12-27T12:24:35-05:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes: > Nope, one of the killer arguments ARG people deploy to reject most > reasonable AI's is: too difficult to implement on some obscure platform for > which Ada never existed and never will. (:-)) The ARG and others have been guilty of that sort of argument in the past, although I think "most reasonable AI's" is an exaggeration. I think that line of reasoning is wrong -- I think it's just fine to have things like Ada.Directories, even though many embedded systems don't have directories. It means that there's some standardization across systems that DO have directories. Those that don't can either provide some minimal/useless implementation, or else appeal to RM-1.1.3(6). I think today's ARG is less inclined to follow that wrong line of reasoning. (I don't much like the design of Ada.Directories, and I think you (Dmitry) agree with me about that, but it's beside the point.) - Bob