LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA Archives

TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA  August 2002

TEAM-ADA August 2002

Subject:

JGNAT 'Ada 95 to bytecode' compiling project ends

From:

Craig Carey <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Craig Carey <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 19 Aug 2002 05:21:35 +1200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (137 lines)

I ask for some more information on who wanted JGNAT, and when they switched
over to a view agreeing with ACT which was it had bugs.


At 31 Jan 2001 09:29 -0700 Wednesday, Carlisle Martin C Dr USAFA/DFCS wrote:
 >
 >You should certainly look into JGNAT, which allows an Ada programmer to
 >access all of the Java classes (including Swing, e.g.) and compile Ada
 >programs into JVM byte code (so they have all of the same multi-platform
 >capabilities).  See http://www.gnat.com (select products, then JGNAT)
 >Download (free) from:  ftp://ftp.cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat/jgnat/jgnat-1.1p/
 >
 >--Martin
 >

ACT pulled the plug on the JGNAT project, so said a messages at comp.lang.ada.
It is quoted below. (This message is not full of questions for Mr Carlisle;
responses from the DoD staff have been brief.).

Here is a copy of the Usenet message:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 >From: [log in to unmask] (Robert Dewar)
 >Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
 >Subject: Re: JGNAT status??? (was: Re: Help: Problem with JGnat)
 >Date: 3 Aug 2002 07:36:06 -0700
 >Organization: http://groups.google.com/
 >
 >"Dr. Michael Paus" <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message news:<[log in to unmask]>...
 >> Yes, a new public version of the current JGNAT sources
 >> could be great.
 >
 >We have no plans for any further work on JGNAT
 >
 >
 >?> if it is true that a version exists which runs on Java
 >> 1.3+.
 >.
 >It is false. There were indeed filed bugs in this area, but
 >they were never solved.
 >
 >> Maybe we can convince ACT to consider
 >> this.
 >
 >What is "this"? Doing more work on JGNAT? That's not going
 >to happen. The sources are out there, the first task would
...
 >
 >Robert Dewar
 >Ada Core Technologies
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Questions:

* Did the DoD fund the ACT JGNAT project?.

* Who was in the DoD that wanted the JGNAT system?.

* Will it be revived with such force and an excess of expenditure that
  JGNAT is made to run properly. I presume ACT argued strongly before
  JGNAT was started, that it would fail for sure, and that is what ACT
  is now saying. So it sounds like the DoD wanted it. [I saw something
  identifying the DoD and I can't find it now.]

* Which part of the DoD was pro-Java/JVM ?. I don't seem to have that
   sort of detail here.

* As seems likely, the DoD opinions of Java and JVMs may have worsened
   over time. Has anybody got comments on which parts of the DoD held
   which views, and when, as Java and buggy software become less and less
   credible inside of the DoD ?.

I do not have quotable comments saying that the DoD was even interested
in JGNAT. I hope to not mislead if wrong on that point.

Is there anti-Java DoD that can be requested under US Freedom of
Information law ?.

This next message of 2001, indicated some serious interest in putting
JVMs into military machines. Or perhaps the DII COE made a mistake


At 19 June 2001 07:51 -0400 Tuesday, Marc A. Criley wrote:

Online at: http://www.acm.org/archives/wa.cgi?A2=ind0106&L=team-ada&P=R3063

 >
 >About a year ago I discovered that the DII COE Integration and Run-Time
 >Specification (I&RTS) 4.0 prohibited the use of tools that compiled
 >languages other than Java into Java Byte Code (JBC).  This obviously
 >precluded the use of Ada products such as JGNAT and AppletMagic to develop
 >"portable Web-based" applications.  (The use of analogous compilers for
 >other languages, such as Eiffel and Python, were therefore barred as well.)
 >
 >Here's the original prohibition:
 >
 >"Developers shall not use compilers designed to convert code developed in
 >other languages (e.g., Ada, C++) to create Java byte-codes. This
 >restriction is important because such compilers may inadvertently bypass
 >intended Java security features."  -- Section 8.2.3, bullet 3.
 >
...
 >As I mentioned, having never received any feedback, I have no idea what
 >role our submission played in the descision to remove the bullet.  Perhaps
 >major, perhaps none, perhaps it was the Python advocates that got it out
 >:-)  Whatever the reason, we did our part, and I'm pleased with the way
 >things turned out.
 >
 >Marc A. Criley
 >Senior Staff Engineer
 >Quadrus Corporation
 >www.quadruscorp.com
 >
 >P.S. A plaintext version of the submission is available in the Team Ada
 >archives at
 >http://www.acm.org/archives/wa.cgi?A2=ind0004&L=team-ada&P=R2106
   [ Subject: Recommended DII COE change to permit Ada (etc) to Java compilers
     Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 10:27:12 -0400 ]

It seems like the DoD is adapting its views about Java. At some point in
time they would attempt to discourage its use. Has that happened already?.

Also, the GNU Java compiler project is not proceeding excellently too.
This if ACT won't do the coding it could be an Ada project with no
possibility ending up being used. With this clearly failed Ada 95 project,
who were the people or agencies that wanted JGNAT ?.

I can't recall a webpage listing Ada 95 failure stories. I have not
looked at the http://www.adaic.org/ website for comments on this topic.




Craig Carey
Ada mailing lists listed: http://www.ijs.co.nz/ada_95.htm

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager