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  November 1996

TEAM-ADA November 1996

Subject:

Official Annex H Clarification

From:

Sy Wong <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Sy Wong <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 15 Nov 1996 10:19:47 PST

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (125 lines)

To: Bob Mathis <[log in to unmask]>
    Paige, Emmett Jr. <[log in to unmask]>,
    Hal Hart <[log in to unmask]>
    Team Ada <[log in to unmask]>

>Jim Moore has already formally replied to Sy's suggestion as requested in
                       ^--???
>his message. I'm still the Convener of WG9, but the message was addressed
>to Jim.

Since

>-- Bob Mathis, (still) Convener ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 WG9 Ada

therefore Jim cannot possibly formerly give me a reply.

>Proposals to WG9 come from subgroups and national delegations.

Question:
  Who pays for U.S.WG9 representation and "national delegations" and
    how selected?  Are there any taxpayer's money involved?

>Sy's suggestion is more appropriate for SIGAda.

This sounds like Washington bureaucracy or dog biting its tail.
There is none in the entire Ada community (except one other person)
supports the idea of a simpler version as a market invasion tool.  Not
even in clarifying Annex-H wordings and validating compilers that is
devoid of the restrictable constructs.  It was only after failure to gain
SigAda action that I took up the suggestion to bypass SigAda and go to
WG9 directly.

>                            Some of SIGAda's working
>groups have made valuable contributions to standards.

There never was any SigAda working group that had worked to simplify the
language, only add to it.  There were only papers agrandiosing how good
is Ada versus C/C++ and calls for educating the (stupid) C/C++ users.  I
have never seen a positive plan to meet or understand their needs.

My objective is to introduce Ada to the following markets:

(1) Hard real-time control systems area, often safety critical.
(2) As HDL in lieu of VHDL (=1980 Ada plus unnecessary extensions).
(3) Electronic Design Automation (EDA) tools.

Riding on an existing ISO standard will be a one up on VHDL, which the
members are arguing each other for a new version and with Verilog.  None
has ISO status.

You, Dr. Mathis, concluded by saying the right principles.

>To make Ada into a commercially accepted language, we have to start
>thinking in business terms (investment, products, selling, profits) not
>government funding and bureaucracies.

I hope you will also carry out what you preach in practice by endorsing
the following volunteer activities in some working group.  Why would
anybody invest in implementing unnecessary and undesirable constructs in
a compiler just to get validated and then be discarded by the user?  Who
pays for the extra cost?

I want to point out that the LRM is ANSI/ISO/IEC-8652:1995 (Ada-95 for
short) but the Rationale is not.  According to LRM:

Ada-95 = essential Ada core + Annex-H restrictables
         ------------------   ---------------------
         |                           |
         |----> part A               |----> part H


>Some of SIGAda's working
>groups have made valuable contributions to standards.

None seeks to clearly delineate Ada-95 into the above two parts.

The author of Annex H made excuse that he was not subsetting in the
Rationale: "Ada compiler has to be validated for the entire language in
any case."  This deeply entrenched idea of the community that users can
discard any constructs they do not want is not based on economic
realities.  This attitude certainly discourages the entry of new tools
vendor that only caters to users for Part A, as I have listed.  Would you
attempt to build a cheap runabout for in-town use that can be validated
to carry 20 tons?

To be specific, the working group can (I may be repeating):

(1) Edit the syntax summary, keywords and LRM pages to purge all that
  is not in part A.
(2) Separate ACVC into must-have and must-not-have for Part A.
(3) Separating out GNAT parts that are not necessary for Part A and
      replacing any C dependencies so that a self-standing product
      can be implemented by tools vendors.
(4) Edit CAMP to remove boiler plates, especially the NO-Foreign label
    which is no longer in force and markup Part H constructs used, if
    any, in CAMP.  The statistics may be useful.

Hal Hart had distributed a report called C41 by some panel.  I have only
seen passive comments as though God hath spoken but no positive action
plan from the Ada community.  First, I question the qualifications of the
panel, many names are familiar to me as demi-gods to the computer science
sector but unknown to the industrial sector.  By copy of this note to Mr.
Paige, I request the background of actual Ada programming experiences
(not just reading the LRM, if some did) of the panel.  If you want to
comment on the Chinese language in competition with English, you should
speak, read and write Chinese well.  Also to the Ada-team, I ask those
having interest in the three applications areas I mentioned to contact
me.  I specifically want to talk to persons that has designed integrated
circuits, have used VHDL or had read IEEE-1076, and had programmed Ada
for practical applications.  So far I have not found one as yet in the
U.S.

By copy to Hal Hart:

What are the qualifications used to select the Ada-team list and
who compiled the list?

I welcome specific criticisms of my proposed working group efforts and
reasoned alternatives to foster broader Ada usage in the three listed
industrial areas.  Hopefully the present and future WG9 convener, both
Americans, will help my lone effort to see Ada come to life in new areas.
Please, no ATNA.

SY Wong, Tarzana CA.

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