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:

Re: Official Annex H Clarification

From:

Michael Feldman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Michael Feldman <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 15 Nov 1996 14:15:42 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (177 lines)

[Sy Wong wrote]
>
> >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.

Perhaps, Sy, it is because for years, you have insisted narrowly that
only one solution is possible, namely, a syntactic subset of the language.
If you are having trouble  rounding up support for this idea, perhaps
it is simply that others don;t believe it's the way to go.
>
> >                            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.

Sy, your view is very narrow. _Syntactic_ simplifications are, in my
opinion and the opinion of most I speak to, unnecessary and undesirable.
>
> 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.

A worthwhile objective.
>
> 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.

I agree.
>
> 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?

_You_ may deem them unnecessary and undesirable; you are evidently having
trouble finding many others who agree with you. There are alternative
approaches that you seem unwilling to consider.
>
> 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
>
Right. If there is any disagreement, it is just in the definition of
"essential".
>
> >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 RM apparently does that already!
>
> 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?

Maybe you are placing too much emphasis on _validation_. Why not get to
work defining what _you_ believe to be the right part A/part H definition,
try to produce a compiler, or at least a path to one, and worry about
validation later? C compilers are not (in general) validated, and C++
ones are certainly not, because there is no standard to validate against.

If there is clearly shown to be a market for your desired compiler, maybe
that will send a message that some validation process for it should exist.
>
> 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.

Who is defining 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.

That is, in my opinion, foolish. Far better would be to put the effort in
on producing a back end for your desired platform(s), then cross-compiling
to it from a "normal" GNAT host. (Since GNAT is implemented already on
most plausible hosts, finding a host is no big deal. Even a DOS box
will suffice.)

> (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.

I agree. Sy, will you take that as your action item?
>
> 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.

I agree with you, but this is a completely separate issue. Since it will
be only a short time before the full report appears on the web, I suggest
that we not waste time commenting on summaries, and simply read the full
report. There will be PLENTY to talk about then.:-)

> 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.

I can't help you there, Sy. I agree with your basic desires, but not with
your suggested solution.
>
> By copy to Hal Hart:
>
> What are the qualifications used to select the Ada-team list and
> who compiled the list?

Team-Ada is nothing but an electronic mailing list; anyone can join
by sending a simple subscribe-me message to the listproc program
at ACM. The syntax escapes me; maybe someone else will post the subscribe
instructions?

You are mistaken if you think someone has _chosen_ a Team-Ada. This is
NOTHING but a group of Ada fans who choose to correspond with each other
on advocacy issues.
>
> 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.

Actually, I think you are better off to formulate your suggestions
_specifically_ and _constructively_ and send them to this list. We are
all here on this list because we want to be here. The list generates a
lot of mail, so I look forward to seeing your suggestions put into
specific terms, instead of complaints. You might find support here,
if we can understand exactly what you are proposing, and if you are
willing to be openminded in reading our replies.

> Please, no ATNA.
 Sorry, I don;t understand ATNA. Meaning?
>
> SY Wong, Tarzana CA.
>
Mike Feldman

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