Re: Query about monitor (passive) task optimization

[agate!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!munnari.oz.au!goanna !ok@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Richard A. O'Keefe)]

In article <1993Aug10.231441.4042@seas.gwu.edu>, mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael
 Feldman) writes:
> - IBM's perceived contempt for science and engineering in jumping to
>   row-major array mapping. This gave the Fortranners the excuse they
>   needed to resist PL/I. It's easy for guys like you and me to say,
>   with hackerish snottiness, "just flip the subscripts, dummy." 
>   But an excuse is an excuse, and it worked, didn't it?

For what it's worth, "iSUB defining" can be used to get column major in PL/I.
With a little help from the preprocessor, it can even be hidden.
The design of PL/I did receive a lot of input from SHARE.

> >As you know, my emphasis is on bindings. If I want to
> >write an enterprise wide application using an OS/2 client-server network,
> >would I choose Ada? At the moment I have to say no because I do not have
> >an effective PM binding with any of the commercial compilers [the binding
> >supplied with the Alsys compiler is welcome, but is fairly thin, and probabl
y
> >suitable only for limited mucking around].
 
> Oh, I quite agree. Some _real_ _good_ bindings and UIMS tools would be
> great.

I was looking at Presentation Manager recently, and every couple of pages
I was thinking "if only there was a thick binding for Ada for this stuff,
it would be _so_ much easier to use."  Would designing a PM thick binding
make a good project in a software engineering course?  I'd like to see it
happen.  If I wasn't swamped with N dozen other things I'd like to MAKE it
happen.
-- 
Richard A. O'Keefe; ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au; RMIT, Melbourne, Australia.