From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 10 Aug 93 13:44:25 GMT
From: slinky.cs.nyu.edu!slinky.cs.nyu.edu!nobody@nyu.edu  (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Query about monitor (passive) task optimization
Message-ID: <2488np$2dj@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Grumble, grumble! Mike, don't over-generalize what I say. I have not said that
I though that there was in general no constituency for trying to improve Ada
compilers. Instead I just expressed opinions on specific areas: automatic
passivization of tasks (I now think this is probably an idea that does not
fly effectively in the Ada context), and specialized Fortran interface
stuff (I think that's quite worthwhile, but I would not hold my breath
for the Fortran crowd to come beat down our walls -- rather I think of it
as a way of letting Ada users take better advantage of all that Fortran
stuff out there!) 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 probably
suitable only for limited mucking around].