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,be23df8e7e275d73 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-07 03:01:35 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!148.122.208.68!news2.oke.nextra.no!nextra.com!news1.oke.nextra.no.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Leif Roar Moldskred Subject: Re: Proving Correctness (was Java Portability) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <9kea9a$lsc$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9keduf$qvc$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <9kelv1$riq$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> User-Agent: tin/1.4.4-20000803 ("Vet for the Insane") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.17-21mdk (i686)) Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.18.231.130 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@nextra.no NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 12:01:02 MET DST Organization: Nextra Public Access X-Trace: readme.online.no 997178462 195.18.231.130 Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 10:01:02 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11472 Date: 2001-08-07T10:01:02+00:00 List-Id: nicolas wrote: > In my opinion, portable libraries which could be only a standard of facts, > as long as you don't violate RM rules, is not a question of fighting against > other languages. Well, in that case I've officially lost your point. No, Ada doesn't have a lot of standard, cross-compiler, cross-platform libraries. So? > It's just about starting to put in practice what Ada has claimed since the > beginning of its existence. > Ada talks about reuse, software components, portability. Hmmm, I'll admit I'm an Ada-neophyte, but I never thought the Ada community hyped these aspects of Ada, anymore than other object-oriented programming languages. > An XML library manipulating files and strings, is compiler dependent, and > the build is not even tested on Windows. > Honestly, a C++ or a Java programmer seeing that has some reasons not to > take very seriously Ada users lessons ... I can see that they might jump to that conclusion, but I'll disagree that they have a reason to. The lack of a wide selection of XML libraries is more a question of demand than of the language. And as for this particular XML library, it seems to me to be your typical one-man open source project. To request that a one-man endeavor should be written and tested for several different compiler/platform combinations is, in my opinion, unreasonable. A better test on the reuse / portability of Ada, would be to consider what additional work needs to be done to make this one-compiler, one-platform library generally portable. Leif Roar Moldskred confused, but opinionated