From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,37ed89588a753b4c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-11 21:47:15 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.kei.com!ssd.intel.com!chnews!hopi!kpriest From: kpriest@hopi.intel.com (Kevin Priest~) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ARPA still undermining Ada Date: 11 Oct 1994 17:01:25 GMT Organization: Intel Corporation Distribution: world Message-ID: <37egd5$2vt@chnews.intel.com> References: <37ab0v$n82@newsbf01.news.aol.com> <37bph1$naq@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: hopi.ch.intel.com Date: 1994-10-11T17:01:25+00:00 List-Id: In article <37bph1$naq@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: [...] >ARPA funds research, and that research uses a variety of languages for >various purposes. [...] > >Certainly it is the case that quite a bit of the ARPA sponsored researchers >are using C and C++. One important note here is that there are at least some >cases I know of where those researchers would have preferred to use Ada (as >being more suited to the task, not because it was mandated), but the lack of >an available base technology that was freely available was a blocking >obstacle. Do you remember what "base technology that was freely available" was used by these researchers? Based on your hope that GNAT will fill the void for future Ada use, I infer they must have used something in the GNU tool set, or something similar. > >We hope that GNAT will spread the use of Ada for research of various kinds, >that is one of its major functions. At the same time, no one that I know of >thinks that all advanced research should be done in Ada, or in C++ for that >matter. > >Many of the ARPA people try to take a long term view, and the view I have >often heard expressed is that languages like Ada (even Ada 9X), and C++ >(even the final version to be standardized) are languages from the past, >and what they are interested in is technology of the future. For some >appropriate time scale, this is very likely to be an accurate assessment! > I am unable to reconcile the following two positions: 1. ARPA funds research, tries to take a long term view, and is interested in technology of the future. 2. ARPA-funded research using Ada has been hindered because there were not free tools available. Why did not ARPA simply fund the purchase of Ada tools, given their long-term view? It seems incredibly short-sighted of a research organization to reject a superior technical solution because they would have to pay for the tools! I'm sorry, Robert, but this defense of ARPA simply doesn't wash. -- Kevin R. Priest kpriest@sedona.intel.com The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of Intel Corporation (unless AMD tries to reverse engineer them).