TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:02:23 -0500
Reply-To:
"W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
> I have been snooping around for info on my earlier proposal on DCE. I
> found a paper on the issue,
> quite interesting reading actually.
>
> http://www.chips.chalmers.se/Chips/dokumentation/rapporter/OS-DCE.html

See also http://www,mitre.org/research/domis/reports/DCEvCORBA.html To
oversimplify, CORBA is better for Object-Oriented work, and has some
low-level capabilities that DCE lacks.  However, DCE has more high-level
capabilities (distributed file system, for example).

An Ada implementation, using CORBA, of some significant DCE subsystem
might be another big "seller."

It would also be nice if more Ada compilers validated Annex E.  I know of
at least one vendor who has stated to at least one customer that since
CORBA, the Ada Annex E is superfluous and they won't waste money on it.

Similarly, I know of Ada programmers that say Annex E is useless because
it's Ada-only, and one-language systems are a thing of the past.

What about an ASIS tool that creates CORBA IDL from Annex E package
specs?  Or non-Ada bindings to Ada specs? (Instead of the reverse).

--
Wes Groleau
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau

ATOM RSS1 RSS2