TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"(No Name Available)" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Sat, 10 Oct 1998 14:40:08 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (63 lines)
[log in to unmask] quoted and then wrote:

>And we ought to be doing everything we can to debunk the myths,
>rather than simply repeating them.

I don't consider anything posted on this list to be anti-Ada evangelism,
but rather a recounting of real-world experience dealing with objections
to Ada.

>> > > 2)  The language dosen't "support" (take your pick)  as part of
>> > >     the language.  These are normally binary, pointer, or memory
>> > >     operations that are machine specific and fall into the
>> > >     infamous 'Chapter 13'.  Much of this was originally supposed
>> > >     to be addressed in the Ada 9x specification.  I've been out
>> > >     of the Ada programming area for the last few years so I can't
>> > >     say if they have or haven't addressed these issues.
>> >
>> > But you work for Aonix. In my opinion, you should try to find out
>> > some facts before you write stuff like the above. It shows a
>> > certain ignorance about your own products that is not very becoming.
>> > It's tacky just to pass others' BS along to wider audiences.
>>
>> Wrong division.  We don't use Ada at this location.
>
>Then IMHO you should remain silent rather than just repeat myths.
>Or call your Ada folks and ask them, before posting something like this.
>You're a member of Team-Ada; presumably you have some interest in
>Ada, so whether or not your division uses the other division's
>products, you could take a bit of time to inform yourself.

I would not presume that Aonix thinks it his job at all to know about Ada.
From the viewpoint of this list, however, sharing such information _is_
the mission.

>> > GNAT is NOT freeware, and NOT public domain. Again, I think it behooves
>> > you to take just a few minutes to understand just what a Free Software
>> > compiler is. In the Unix community, they refer to Linux as "open-source."
>> > I think that best describes GNAT as well. Words are important; please
>> > learn to use them properly. Let's work to reduce the BS content of
>> > this list and this industry.
>>
>> Would you classify gnat as shareware?
>
>No.
>
>> I'm not aware of anyone asking for
>> money for using gnat and I thought it was under the GNU copyleft
protection.
>
>That is EXACTLY what it is. It is Free Software, which is a defined term.
>Free Software is NOT "freeware", and it is CERTAINLY not public domain.
>It could not possibly be public domain if it is copyrighted.
>The GNU "copyleft" is a COPYRIGHT. Read the GPL (attached).

I don't believe it is a requirement of anyone to study those legalities to
participate in Team Ada.  The point being made was that <whatever GNAT is>
has relieved for some the price pressure of compilers.  For others it has
not, but just like programming languages, no business economic model meets
the needs of all.


Larry Kilgallen

ATOM RSS1 RSS2