Re: Microsoft & Ada

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Samuel T. Harris]

longlegs wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> I once heard that Microsoft will develop their Visual Ada++. Is that true.
> 
> thanks!
> 
> Huafeng Mo

I remember visiting the Microsoft booth at the Air Force Small Computer
Conference at Gunther AFB while I was an Air Force officer. This was
sometime in 1986/1987 time frame. I asked the representative about
all those Microsoft compilers (C, FORTRAN, COBOL, Pascal) and what
were their plans for producing an Ada compiler? He laughed in my face!
I went to that conference 3 years in a row and got the same response
from 3 different Microsoft reps :)

-- 
Samuel T. Harris, Principal Engineer
Raytheon Training Incorporated
"If you can make it, We can fake it!"

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Jerry Petrey]

longlegs wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> I once heard that Microsoft will develop their Visual Ada++. Is that true.
> 
> thanks!
> 
> Huafeng Mo

I doubt that anyone at Microsoft is smart enough to use Ada :-)

Jerry

-- 
=====================================================================
=  Jerry Petrey - Consultant Software Engineer  - Member Team Ada   =
=                 GP Software Consultants         Member Team Forth =
=  homepage:   http://members.tripod.com/~gpetrey/index.html        =
=  email: remove <nospam> from reply address                        =
=====================================================================

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[John McCabe]

"longlegs" <longlegs@public.sta.net.cn> wrote:
>Hi
>
>I once heard that Microsoft will develop their Visual Ada++. Is that true.

The only problem then would be that Microsoft could actually end up 
producing a product that worked :-}

-- 
Best Regards
John McCabe

=====================================================================
Any opinions expressed are mine and based on my own experience. They
  should in no way be taken as the opinion of anyone I am currently
     working with, or of the company I am currently working for.
       If you have a problem with anything I say, SPEAK TO ME!
=====================================================================

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Markus Kuhn]

Samuel T. Harris wrote:
> > I once heard that Microsoft will develop their Visual Ada++. Is that true.

Dream on. But then, considering the lack of interest of the
development community in Visual J++, may be, they start to
look for something else one day. Don't forget that you are talking
about an environment where Ada is known as a late 1970 non-sexy
military language, and where most people have never even heard of
Ada95.

> I remember visiting the Microsoft booth at the Air Force Small Computer
> Conference at Gunther AFB while I was an Air Force officer. This was
> sometime in 1986/1987 time frame. I asked the representative about
> all those Microsoft compilers (C, FORTRAN, COBOL, Pascal) and what
> were their plans for producing an Ada compiler? He laughed in my face!
> I went to that conference 3 years in a row and got the same response
> from 3 different Microsoft reps :)

I asked Microsoft something similar in 1990 at CeBIT, a big German
computer fair. Same response. They probably should read in the
latest Byte issue the article about the causes for the frequent
Windows crashes, where the safety problems of C/C++ are listed
as one of the major reasons for the notorious unreliability of
applications on Microsoft platforms. Microsoft never had to get
some peice of code through an FAA software safety certification.

Markus

-- 
Markus G. Kuhn, Security Group, Computer Lab, Cambridge University, UK
email: mkuhn at acm.org,  home page: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Adrian BY, Hoe]

longlegs wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> I once heard that Microsoft will develop their Visual Ada++. Is that true.
> 
> thanks!
> 
> Huafeng Mo



Windows98 crashed on Bill Gates recently.  Obviously, Windows98 is not
written in Ada, and it never will.  Microsoft Visual Ada++,   nahh....

-- 
BY Hoe                                   byhoe.lexical@technologist.com
VP, R&D (ES/IS Group)                                 lexical@tm.net.my
Lexical Integration (M) Sdn Bhd    http://www.angelfire.com/biz/Lexical

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Sergey Makarenko]

longlegs wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> I once heard that Microsoft will develop their Visual Ada++. Is that true.
> 
> thanks!
> 
> Huafeng Mo

As far as I remember, the posting about Visual Ada++ was dated by April
the 1st :-)

Regards,

-- 
Sergey Makarenko

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Mark D McKinneyq]

Jerry Petrey Wrote
>
>I doubt that anyone at Microsoft is smart enough to use Ada :-)
>
>Jerry
>
When you've built you buisness by doing building totally proprietary 
non-portable solutions and somehow managed to create and enormous market 
presence, It easy to develop grandios notion Of things like "we are the 
only one that counts therefor any thing we do becomes becomes the standard. 
I'm sure that from their point of view developing a laguage product that 
might make it easier to swtich to a non-standard(Microsoft Persective) OS 
like UNIX does not fit in with their well establish corporate culture of arrogance.

  
   Mark
=============
= Soap  Box =
=============
Does anyone know where I can aquire a good pew cheap.

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[david.c.hoos.sr]

In article <3556719D.32D52430@pipeline.com>,
  Daren Scot Wilson <darenw@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> In a recent posting to comp.lang.ada Markus Kuhn wrote:
> > I asked Microsoft something similar in 1990 at CeBIT, a big German
> > computer fair. Same response. They probably should read in the
> > latest Byte issue the article about the causes for the frequent
> > Windows crashes, where the safety problems of C/C++ are listed
> > as one of the major reasons for the notorious unreliability of
> > applications on Microsoft platforms.
>
> I remember that article.   It was a good one.  Is the text available
> on-line anywhere?
>
> --

It's the April issue, and the article is at
"http://www.byte.com/art/9804/sec5/art1.htm#048cova2"

David C. Hoos, Sr.
> Daren Scot Wilson
> darenw@pipeline.com
> www.newcolor.com
> ------------------
> Quote of the Month:
>
> "It's a sorry enough situation that Microsoft has a ring
> planted in most of our noses, but they now..."
>
>        ...read the rest at http://www.vcnet.com/bms/
>


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Dirk Craeynest]

In article <3556719D.32D52430@pipeline.com> Daren Scot Wilson
<darenw@pipeline.com> writes:
>In a recent posting to comp.lang.ada Markus Kuhn wrote:
[...]
>> latest Byte issue the article about the causes for the frequent
>> Windows crashes, where the safety problems of C/C++ are listed
>> as one of the major reasons for the notorious unreliability of
>> applications on Microsoft platforms.
>
>I remember that article.   It was a good one.  Is the text available
>on-line anywhere?

Byte / April 1998 / Cover Story : Crash-Proof Computing 

http://www.byte.com/art/9804/sec5/sec5.htm

    Here's why today's PCs are the most crash-prone computers
    ever built -- and how you can make yours more reliable.
    - by Tom R. Halfhill 

The final paragraph of the paper, in the section

    http://www.byte.com/art/9804/sec5/art7.htm
    Better Tools for Better Code

after heaps of arguments why Java is so much better than "C/C++" [sic],
concludes with:

    Java is by no means the only language to emphasize code safety.
    Eiffel, an object-oriented language developed by Bertrand Meyer in
    1988, goes even further than Java in some ways. Eiffel requires
    methods to expose their calling parameters at run time. Most other
    languages, including Java and C/C++, rely on documentation for this
    purpose. Ada, a 1970s language developed for the U.S. Department
    of Defense, contains similar safeguards. But Java is the newest
    language to win broad support from tool vendors, developers, OS
    vendors, and schools. 

"Ada, a 1970s language developed for the U.S. DoD" is clearly not "new"
enough to be considered interesting.

Sigh...

Dirk (Dirk.Craeynest@cs.kuleuven.ac.be for Ada-Belgium e-mail)

*** June 8-12, Intl. Conference on Reliable Software Technologies
*** - Ada-Europe'98, Uppsala, Sweden, http://www.ada-europe.org/

--
Dirk Craeynest | OFFIS nv/sa       | Email Dirk.Craeynest@offis.be
   Ada-Belgium | Weiveldlaan 41/32 | Phone ++32(2)725.40.25
   Ada-Europe  | B-1930 Zaventem   |       ++32(2)729.97.36 (work)
   Team Ada    | Belgium           | Fax   ++32(2)725.40.12

+-------------/ E-mail: ada@belgium.eu.net (Ada-Belgium Board)
|Ada-Belgium /     WWW: http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~dirk/ada-belgium/
|on Internet/      FTP: ftp://ftp.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/Ada-Belgium
+----------/ Mail-list: ada-belgium-info-request@cs.kuleuven.ac.be

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Daren Scot Wilson]

In a recent posting to comp.lang.ada Markus Kuhn wrote:
> I asked Microsoft something similar in 1990 at CeBIT, a big German
> computer fair. Same response. They probably should read in the
> latest Byte issue the article about the causes for the frequent
> Windows crashes, where the safety problems of C/C++ are listed
> as one of the major reasons for the notorious unreliability of
> applications on Microsoft platforms.

I remember that article.   It was a good one.  Is the text available
on-line anywhere?


-- 
Daren Scot Wilson
darenw@pipeline.com
www.newcolor.com
------------------
Quote of the Month:

"It's a sorry enough situation that Microsoft has a ring
planted in most of our noses, but they now..."

       ...read the rest at http://www.vcnet.com/bms/

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Samuel Mize]

In article <6j6n9l$ql@dolphin.pst.cfmu.eurocontrol.be>,
Dirk Craeynest <crt@cfmu.eurocontrol.be> wrote:

>Byte / April 1998 / Cover Story : Crash-Proof Computing 
...
>    purpose. Ada, a 1970s language developed for the U.S. Department
>    of Defense, contains similar safeguards. But Java is the newest
>    language to win broad support from tool vendors, developers, OS
>    vendors, and schools. 
>
>"Ada, a 1970s language developed for the U.S. DoD" is clearly not "new"
>enough to be considered interesting.

Would that 70s language be Ada 83 or Ada 95?

How sad that Byte can't even count by tens.

Best,
Sam Mize
-- 
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada
Multi-part MIME message: " ", " ", " " (hands waving)
Fight Spam - see http://www.cauce.org/

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[nabbasi]

>In a recent posting to comp.lang.ada Markus Kuhn wrote:
>> I asked Microsoft something similar in 1990 at CeBIT, a big German
>> computer fair. Same response. They probably should read in the
>> latest Byte issue the article about the causes for the frequent
>> Windows crashes, where the safety problems of C/C++ are listed
>> as one of the major reasons for the notorious unreliability of
>> applications on Microsoft platforms.

it is not only safety problems with C++, it is literally having the
same code, behave differently on different platforms !

I am involved in porting some C++ application. on the Mac, a different
function was being called, as compared with the application
when compiled under Sun Solaris C++ compiler.

the c++ code makes heavy use of inheritance and virtual functions and
function overriding, with heavy use of user defined operators. it is very
hard by just looking at the code to really know how many temporary 
variables will be created, and which function will be called. This
one bug took 5 hours to find, where 2 different function where called
depending on the platform and how the compiler decided to generate the code.

and I do not want to even mention the casting headaches...

when I write C++ code, I'll stick to simple features of C++ becuase I 
really prefer to write software instead of just wasting time debugging 
weired language features.

given all that, the industry still wants to code in C++, so let 
them have it. it is their money after all. If a company is smart enough
to use Ada and find they can build software faster and with less bugs, then
let them do that and let them produce better software and compete with
the others who are using C++. The market now seem to be moving away from
C++ to Java. so lets see if Java does a better job at producing better
quality software. If Java does not make it, what language will jump in 
to take its place? Ada05 ?  

Nasser

Microsoft & Ada

[Andrew Carroll]

Well let's see.  Micorsoft recently gave my almamater six million
dollars worth of software and other "stuff".  Do you think their
generocity is a means to and end?  The school sure appreciates it and
any C.S. students that go there get free software.  The freshmen I
talked to recently (who were there when I was a senior) say there has
been a "sharp" (no pun intended) curriculum change.  Go figure.

It's not that great of me to say bad things about a company that has
given A LOT of money to others.  Then again giving with the expectation
of getting something back isn't giving, it's bribing.  Ada has A LOT
going for it and one very, very large customer (with deeeeeep pockets).
You got it, Uncle Sam plus all the other countries who use Ada.

The real sad part about it, if it actually came down to this, is that
your experience and education with Ada doesn't have the Microsoft
Certificate of Approval to develop Ada software the "Microsoft way".
Ouch...  Oh no, make no mistake about it, MS Visual Ada will be MUCH
different than the Ada you know.  That's almost a guarantee.

I can see it now..."smart bombs" flying through the air with a big blue,
red, green and yellow stickers on it that say "Powered by Centrino" or
"Windows inside".
I can almost hear it...
"CP, CP this is seal team two over"
"go ahead team two"
"We've got a SITREP"
"Send the SITREP team two"
"We're pinned down by three Iraqi tanks and our smart missles won't
fire"
"Did you reboot team two?"
"Roger"
"Did you check the events in the event viewer"
"Roger, no clear resolutions available"
"Wait one team two"
"Roger CP"
"Team two this is CP"
"Go ahead CP"
"Microsoft support wants to know if you installed the latest service
pack"

Ehhhh, I'm so optomistic at times.  I'm sure there is SOMETHING good to
come of it right?  Who knows, maybe they'll come out with AdaOS.

Is the Ada language and grammar licensed or patented?

Yep, your right, I'm over reacting.

Andrew Carroll
Carroll-Tech
720-273-6814
andrew@carroll-tech.net

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Pascal Obry]

"Andrew Carroll" <andrew@carroll-tech.net> writes:

> The real sad part about it, if it actually came down to this, is that
> your experience and education with Ada doesn't have the Microsoft
> Certificate of Approval to develop Ada software the "Microsoft way".
> Ouch...  Oh no, make no mistake about it, MS Visual Ada will be MUCH
> different than the Ada you know.  That's almost a guarantee.

That's not a big problem. Ada needs some backing. If Microsoft has an Ada
compiler this will be a good thing to have Ada used in projects, manager will
be reassure... enven if you do not use Microsoft Visual Ada :)

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.org
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[stephane richard]

>
> That's not a big problem. Ada needs some backing. If Microsoft has an Ada
> compiler this will be a good thing to have Ada used in projects, manager 
> will
> be reassure... enven if you do not use Microsoft Visual Ada :)
>
> Pascal.
>
I second this fully :-).   no matter what the reason, even if any, it could 
be a great
step for Ada.

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Ludovic Brenta]

Stéphane Richard writes:
> Pascal Obry wrote: 
>>
>> That's not a big problem. Ada needs some backing. If Microsoft has
>> an Ada compiler this will be a good thing to have Ada used in
>> projects, manager will be reassure... enven if you do not use
>> Microsoft Visual Ada :)
>>
>> Pascal.

> I second this fully :-).  no matter what the reason, even if any, it
> could be a great step for Ada.

But only if they respect the ISO standard.  A few years ago, they
tried to invent "non-portable Java" and the only thing that stopped
them was a trial by Sun.  No Ada company, I fear, is in a position to
sue Microsoft if they invent a "Microsoft Visual Ada" with weak type
checking, no tasking, and no standard library other than Win32 to
"ease interoperability" with their other .NET languages.

Of course, the mere existence of a "Microsoft Visual Ada" flyer or
brochure would be enough to make Ada in general more popular.  I don't
care as much for the actual compiler :)

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Microsoft & Ada

[Andrew Carroll]

> ------------------------------
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 23:57:03 +0200
> From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org>
> Subject: Re: Microsoft & Ada
[snip]
> But only if they respect the ISO standard.  A few years ago, they
> tried to invent "non-portable Java" and the only thing that stopped
> them was a trial by Sun.  No Ada company, I fear, is in a position to
> sue Microsoft if they invent a "Microsoft Visual Ada" with weak type
> checking, no tasking, and no standard library other than Win32 to
> "ease interoperability" with their other .NET languages.
>
> Of course, the mere existence of a "Microsoft Visual Ada" flyer or
> brochure would be enough to make Ada in general more popular.  I don't
> care as much for the actual compiler :)
>
> --
> Ludovic Brenta.

Very well written Ludovic.

I don't doubt the exposure would help Ada if we were just focusing on
that one aspect, but at what cost to the Ada "standard" we are used to?
We know, at least we should know, that Microsoft doesn't just "jump on
the bandwagon".  Microsoft is more likely to buy the bandwagon, fire the
band members, melt all the instruments, junk the wagon and then open a
sports bar with a juke-box.

Andrew Carroll
Carroll-Tech
720-273-6814
andrew@carroll-tech.net

Microsoft & Ada

[Andrew Carroll]

Okay, let me ask it again.

Is the Ada language licensed or patented?  By language I mean the
grammar that the compiler uses.  I think it's called a BNF grammar.

Also, if you support the idea of Microsoft getting involved with Ada,
why?
What is at risk for you if Microsoft did get involved?
Are there benefits related to Microsoft's involvement that reduce your
current risks?
If so, what are they?
Why do you feel that Microsoft's involvement with Ada implies positive
results only?


Andrew Carroll
Carroll-Tech
720-273-6814
andrew@carroll-tech.net

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Ludovic Brenta]

"Andrew Carroll" writes:
> Okay, let me ask it again.
>
> Is the Ada language licensed or patented?  By language I mean the
> grammar that the compiler uses.  I think it's called a BNF grammar.

Ada Reference Manual - Language and Standard Libraries
Copyright © 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, Intermetrics, Inc.
This copyright is assigned to the U.S. Government. All rights reserved.

Technical Corrigendum 1
Copyright © 2000, The MITRE Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

The complete copyright statements are here:

http://www.adaic.org/standards/95lrm/html/RM-TTL.html

> Also, if you support the idea of Microsoft getting involved with
> Ada, why?  What is at risk for you if Microsoft did get involved?
> Are there benefits related to Microsoft's involvement that reduce
> your current risks?  If so, what are they?  Why do you feel that
> Microsoft's involvement with Ada implies positive results only?

I would be happy if Microsoft provided an Ada compiler, provided that
this is really an Ada compiler (as defined by the standard) and not a
compiler for a different language.  If they call this different
language "Ada" or "Microsoft Visual Ada", we're in trouble.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[stephane richard]

See me comments distributed in your message.  Preceded by a ***

"Andrew Carroll" <andrew@carroll-tech.net> wrote in message 
news:mailman.10.1094898755.390.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org...
> Okay, let me ask it again.
>
> Is the Ada language licensed or patented?  By language I mean the
> grammar that the compiler uses.  I think it's called a BNF grammar.
>
*** No, Ada, like any other language isn't patented per se, anyone that 
wants to write a compiler for any language probably has the right to do so. 
And you're right it is called a BNF (For Backus Naure Formal) language 
description.

> Also, if you support the idea of Microsoft getting involved with Ada,
> why?

*** Well for the sake of added visibility of Ada itself to a definitaly 
widespread user base of microsoft visual Studio developers all over the 
world, .net and others.  That would be one of the benefits.  Think of it 
this way.  If you say, in a crowded room, that you program in Ada, it can 
have a certain level of influence perhaps.  What if Microsoft said the very 
same phrase in that same crowded room.  Do you think you, or microsoft would 
have the bigger influence?

> What is at risk for you if Microsoft did get involved?

*** Loss of standards, like what they did to C++, Like Borland did to C++ 
too...they didn't totally destroy C++ but in most cases, code written for 
Visual C++ tend to not compile as is on other C++ compilers.

> Are there benefits related to Microsoft's involvement that reduce your
> current risks?

*** It's not quite a question of risk, at least not in my mind.  It's more a 
question of visibility and incluence so to speak.  What if you went to the 
microsoft website and it recommended Ada  and/or recommended Ad related 
website and strategies and so on and so forth.

*** For the newcomer, they would wonder what Ada is and why it's being 
pushed that much by microsoft.

*** For the veteran, well some might think: .oO(  Wow, Microsoft finally 
understood ) or something like that ;-).   Seriously though, even the 
veterans will agree that today, want to or not, still and even with the 
latest court crazes that went on with microsoft.  Microsoft is a big 
influencial box, what it says pretty much goes.  so if Ada is mentionned on 
the microsoft website for example, it's worth it's weight in gold.  Same 
thing if Ada is spoken in seminars or other events organized by microsoft.

> If so, what are they?

*** see above.

> Why do you feel that Microsoft's involvement with Ada implies positive
> results only?

***  Positive results as far as Ada promotion goes.  see above but like I 
said, if microsoft says so, it IS so.  Or at least some people could start 
thinking differently because Microsoft started thinking differently about 
Ada.  In a way it's sad, but it is true. :-)

*** As far as the Ada language goes.  well Unless Microsoft decides to buy 
the ISO organization that handles the Ada standard, I don't think they can 
destroy Ada as we know it.  however, in libraries that they might create to 
make Ada more usable for windows (if they can ;-) ) then standards might be 
broken as a sacrifice to making their Ada Package (I wont say Visual Ada, 
but it does keep popping in my head) more usable under Windows (of course) 
:-).

>
>

***  Mind you, even though I'm not a big microsoft fanatic, I'm not ignorant 
to the good that companies like microsoft can do if they decide to backup or 
boost a product, whichever it might be :-).

> Andrew Carroll
> Carroll-Tech
> 720-273-6814
> andrew@carroll-tech.net
>

*** And that was my 2 cents. sorta ;-). 

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Brian May]

>>>>> "stephane" == stephane richard <stephane.richard@verizon.net> writes:

    stephane> *** Loss of standards, like what they did to C++, Like
    stephane> Borland did to C++ too...they didn't totally destroy C++
    stephane> but in most cases, code written for Visual C++ tend to
    stephane> not compile as is on other C++ compilers.

What if, say Microsoft were to design and implement thick Win32
bindings for functions that are not standardized in Ada? Some
examples: Win32 GUI or serial IO.

Would this be considered a good thing or bad thing?

What if there were able to implement the bindings in such a way that
they don't have to supply any source code? What if the bindings can
only be used with Microsoft's compiler? (I guess it may still be
possible to write an open source library that implements the same
package specifications).

My personal thought is that code that uses such routines should be
isolated, so you can still compile the program without these functions
(perhaps using alternate code). That is, if portability is required.
In practise, I could imagine code being written that requires the new
functions without any thought as to making it portable.

I think there are a number of related issues here, so I am curious
what peoples thoughts are on the matter.
-- 
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[stephane richard]

"Brian May" <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au> wrote in message 
news:sa43c1p6lf9.fsf@snoopy.apana.org.au...
>>>>>> "stephane" == stephane richard <stephane.richard@verizon.net> writes:
>
>    stephane> *** Loss of standards, like what they did to C++, Like
>    stephane> Borland did to C++ too...they didn't totally destroy C++
>    stephane> but in most cases, code written for Visual C++ tend to
>    stephane> not compile as is on other C++ compilers.
>
> What if, say Microsoft were to design and implement thick Win32
> bindings for functions that are not standardized in Ada? Some
> examples: Win32 GUI or serial IO.
>
> Would this be considered a good thing or bad thing?

*** Well that would be a good thing.  As long as they don't attempt to 
change anything that is part of the Ada 95 or Ada 2005 standard and 
revisions, they can play with whatever they want :-).  Again if it makes Ada 
more usable to window programmers that's their business.  Like you said 
though, it wouldn't be good if it was the ONLY way to develop window 
applications.  A choice of microsoft or non microsoft library perhaps would 
be enough :-).

>
> What if there were able to implement the bindings in such a way that
> they don't have to supply any source code? What if the bindings can
> only be used with Microsoft's compiler? (I guess it may still be
> possible to write an open source library that implements the same
> package specifications).
>
*** This I wouldn't agree on.  Like VB's runtime, they might be tempted to 
do so.  But I wouldn't agree with that notion and wouldn't use it unless I 
was 100% sure that it simply doesn't  exist and I don't happen to know how 
to do it myself :-).

> My personal thought is that code that uses such routines should be
> isolated, so you can still compile the program without these functions
> (perhaps using alternate code). That is, if portability is required.
> In practise, I could imagine code being written that requires the new
> functions without any thought as to making it portable.
>
That's part of the strength of Ada isn't?  Ada.Text_IO is there but I could 
create my own Text_IO and use that one instead right?  If so, and if 
microsoft doesn't get rid of this feature in their version. It's fine by me 
:-).

> I think there are a number of related issues here, so I am curious
> what peoples thoughts are on the matter.

*** Yes, you're right, me I'm thinking the influencial side of things. 
There's all that you mentionned here too and there's the commercial and/or 
competitive side to it too.  What influence will it have on the price of 
other compilers, etc etc....I guess I'm thinking first steps first so to 
speak.  We (the ada community) know the greatness of Ada, perhaps Microsoft 
Visual Ada will help broaden the walls of the Ada community and let other 
developers learn the benifits of Ada :-).

> -- 
> Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au> 

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Wes Groleau]

Brian May wrote:
> What if, say Microsoft were to design and implement thick Win32
> bindings for functions that are not standardized in Ada? Some
> examples: Win32 GUI or serial IO.
> 
> Would this be considered a good thing or bad thing?

Probably good, unless it was an attempt (and a successful
one) to eliminate open source bindings and therefore
other products using open source bindings.

> What if there were able to implement the bindings in such a way that
> they don't have to supply any source code? What if the bindings can
> only be used with Microsoft's compiler? (I guess it may still be

Even if Microsoft's compiler is fully validated (and I wouldn't
take _their_ word for it for a second), it could still contain
extensions (for example, GNAT has 'Img) that no other compiler
has--and as soon as another copies it, M$ will change it.

Then their bindings could be written to use such extensions....

> I think there are a number of related issues here, so I am curious
> what peoples thoughts are on the matter.

My thoughts are that no matter how good a Microsoft
product is or seems to be, their history shows that
they nearly always include some kill-the-competition
feature.  And rarely include enough reliability
features.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which
    the only specification is that it should run noiselessly.
                               -- unknown

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Björn Persson]

Andrew Carroll wrote:

> Is the Ada language licensed or patented?  By language I mean the
> grammar that the compiler uses.  I think it's called a BNF grammar.

As Ludovic said the reference manual is copyrighted but that doesn't 
matter. The only thing I can think of that could force anyone to keep 
their compiler compatible is if the name "Ada" is a trademark that you 
may use only if your compiler passes the validation tests.

Is it a trademark? Somebody ought to know.

-- 
Björn Persson                              PGP key A88682FD
                    omb jor ers @sv ge.
                    r o.b n.p son eri nu

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[stephane richard]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 546 bytes --]

>"Bj�rn Persson" <spam-away@nowhere.nil> wrote in message 
>news:7MJ0d.103131As Ludovic said the >reference manual is copyrighted but 
>that doesn't matter. The only thing I can think of that could force anyone 
>to keep their compiler compatible is if the name "Ada" is a trademark that 
>you may use only if your compiler passes the validation tests.

>Is it a trademark? Somebody ought to know.

 I've looked and I simply can't find Ada(tm) so far.  I would have to assume 
it isn't but I'll leave that to those that really do know ;-) 

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[tmoran]

>> What if, say Microsoft were to design and implement thick Win32
>> bindings for functions that are not standardized in Ada? Some
>> examples: Win32 GUI or serial IO.
>Probably good, unless it was an attempt (and a successful
>one) to eliminate open source bindings and therefore
>other products using open source bindings.
  If MS did that and advertised it, then 99.9% of people would
know of the MS bindings.  The existing (source available) bindings
like Claw, GWindows, etc would remain known to the 0.1% of people
who know of them now.  The end result seems obvious.

>Even if Microsoft's compiler is fully validated (and I wouldn't
>take _their_ word for it for a second), it could still contain
>extensions (for example, GNAT has 'Img) that no other compiler has
  Gnat's an interesting example.  It's advertised as an Ada compiler, but
with the default compilation options, it isn't.  And my observation is
that a very large fraction of Open Source Ada code is in fact written so
it depends on specific characteristics of Gnat.

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Jeffrey Carter]

Bj�rn Persson wrote:
> 
> Is it a trademark? Somebody ought to know.

Back in the days of Ada 83, "Ada" was trademarked by the DoD, and you 
couldn't call a compiler an Ada compiler unless it was validated. 
However, that hasn't been true for a long time.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle,
do you understand? Even--and I want to make this
absolutely clear--even if they do say, 'Jehova.'"
Monty Python's Life of Brian
74

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Pascal Obry]

Ludovic Brenta <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org> writes:

> I would be happy if Microsoft provided an Ada compiler, provided that
> this is really an Ada compiler (as defined by the standard) and not a
> compiler for a different language.  If they call this different
> language "Ada" or "Microsoft Visual Ada", we're in trouble.

Visual C++ is just this: a different language, and C++ is far from being in
trouble... I would love to see Ada in the same level of troubles ! As I said
earlier Microsoft Visual Ada will be a good way to introduce Ada in some
projects... even if you stick to Ada not the Visual version of it coming from
Microsoft :)

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.org
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Pascal Obry]

tmoran@acm.org writes:

>   Gnat's an interesting example.  It's advertised as an Ada compiler, but
> with the default compilation options, it isn't.  

You are pushing a bit far :)

> And my observation is that a very large fraction of Open Source Ada code is
> in fact written so it depends on specific characteristics of Gnat.

Especially since only GNAT has implemented Annex E : Distributed Annex :) So
in this sense only GNAT is a real Ada compiler :) And yes I know that this is
an optional annex, I just like to tease :)

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.org
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Wes Groleau]

Pascal Obry wrote:

> tmoran@acm.org writes:
> 
>>  Gnat's an interesting example.  It's advertised as an Ada compiler, but
>>with the default compilation options, it isn't. 
> 
> You are pushing a bit far :)

With the default options, GNAT does not comply
with certain RM requirements (check into "overflow").

But it does provide command line switches to make it compliant.
I always thought that was a poor choice--folks who have a REASON
to disable checks should do so explicitly.  But apparently the
paying customers disagree.


-- 
Wes Groleau
-----------
Curmudgeon's Complaints on Courtesy:
http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html
(Not necessarily my opinion, but worth reading)

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Adrian Hoe]

stephane richard wrote:
>>That's not a big problem. Ada needs some backing. If Microsoft has an Ada
>>compiler this will be a good thing to have Ada used in projects, manager 
>>will
>>be reassure... enven if you do not use Microsoft Visual Ada :)
>>
>>Pascal.
>>
> 
> I second this fully :-).   no matter what the reason, even if any, it could 
> be a great
> step for Ada.
> 
> 
> 

To trade Ada's soul for that? This sounds very satanic. :(
-- 
Adrian Hoe
m a i l b o x AT a d r i a n h o e . c o m

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Adrian Hoe]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> Stéphane Richard writes:
> 
>>Pascal Obry wrote: 
>>
>>>That's not a big problem. Ada needs some backing. If Microsoft has
>>>an Ada compiler this will be a good thing to have Ada used in
>>>projects, manager will be reassure... enven if you do not use
>>>Microsoft Visual Ada :)
>>>
>>>Pascal.
> 
> 
>>I second this fully :-).  no matter what the reason, even if any, it
>>could be a great step for Ada.
> 
> 
> But only if they respect the ISO standard.  A few years ago, they
> tried to invent "non-portable Java" and the only thing that stopped
> them was a trial by Sun.  No Ada company, I fear, is in a position to
> sue Microsoft if they invent a "Microsoft Visual Ada" with weak type
> checking, no tasking, and no standard library other than Win32 to
> "ease interoperability" with their other .NET languages.
> 
> Of course, the mere existence of a "Microsoft Visual Ada" flyer or
> brochure would be enough to make Ada in general more popular.  I don't
> care as much for the actual compiler :)
> 

I will yell: "Microsoft is murdering Ada!"
-- 
Adrian Hoe
m a i l b o x AT a d r i a n h o e . c o m

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Adrian Hoe]

Pascal Obry wrote:

> Ludovic Brenta <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org> writes:
> 
> 
>>I would be happy if Microsoft provided an Ada compiler, provided that
>>this is really an Ada compiler (as defined by the standard) and not a
>>compiler for a different language.  If they call this different
>>language "Ada" or "Microsoft Visual Ada", we're in trouble.
> 
> 
> Visual C++ is just this: a different language, and C++ is far from being in
> trouble... I would love to see Ada in the same level of troubles ! As I said
> earlier Microsoft Visual Ada will be a good way to introduce Ada in some
> projects... even if you stick to Ada not the Visual version of it coming from
> Microsoft :)
> 
> Pascal.
> 

But there will be chaos. There are already a whole large bunch of naive 
people who don't know the existence of Ada. M$ Visual Ada is going to 
make hell lot of confusion. Do you think Ada will be benefit from this? 
I doubt so.
-- 
Adrian Hoe
m a i l b o x AT a d r i a n h o e . c o m

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Adrian Hoe]

Wes Groleau wrote:

> Brian May wrote:
> 
>> What if, say Microsoft were to design and implement thick Win32
>> bindings for functions that are not standardized in Ada? Some
>> examples: Win32 GUI or serial IO.
>>
>> Would this be considered a good thing or bad thing?
> 
> 
> Probably good, unless it was an attempt (and a successful
> one) to eliminate open source bindings and therefore
> other products using open source bindings.
> 
>> What if there were able to implement the bindings in such a way that
>> they don't have to supply any source code? What if the bindings can
>> only be used with Microsoft's compiler? (I guess it may still be
> 
> 
> Even if Microsoft's compiler is fully validated (and I wouldn't
> take _their_ word for it for a second), it could still contain
> extensions (for example, GNAT has 'Img) that no other compiler
> has--and as soon as another copies it, M$ will change it.
> 
> Then their bindings could be written to use such extensions....
> 
>> I think there are a number of related issues here, so I am curious
>> what peoples thoughts are on the matter.
> 
> 
> My thoughts are that no matter how good a Microsoft
> product is or seems to be, their history shows that
> they nearly always include some kill-the-competition
> feature.  And rarely include enough reliability
> features.
> 

I strongly agree to last statement.

-- 
Adrian Hoe
m a i l b o x AT a d r i a n h o e . c o m

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Robert C. Leif]

      Faustian would be a better term.  However, if we get lucky, making any
reasonable deal with Microsoft would be much better than our present
diminished prospects.  All that I wish for in the .Net world is that Ada is
brought up to be equal to Eiffel.  
      If Microsoft should discover Ada or SPARK, more power to them.  I am
on the side of any group of capitalists who use Ada.  If the new Ada users
demolish their competition, I will rejoice.  Frankly, I believe that Ada can
provide Microsoft with something better than money, a chance to make their
competitors look like a group of fools.  Any one of the present competitors
could have stopped Microsoft, if they made reliable well engineered
products.  Instead the competitors use Java and XML DTDs.  When the economy
functions correctly, stupid business men go broke.  I might feel sorry for
the average shareholders; however, this is the way capitalism is supposed to
work.
      Bob Leif
      -------------------
      Message: 7
      Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:05:24 +0800
      From: Adrian Hoe <AdrianHoe@nowhere.com>
      Subject: Re: Microsoft & Ada
      To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org
      Message-ID: <41450d47$1_1@news.tm.net.my>
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
      
      stephane richard wrote:
      >>That's not a big problem. Ada needs some backing. If Microsoft has
an Ada
      >>compiler this will be a good thing to have Ada used in projects,
manager 
      >>will
      >>be reassure... enven if you do not use Microsoft Visual Ada :)
      >>
      >>Pascal.
      >>
      > 
      > I second this fully :-).   no matter what the reason, even if any,
it could 
      > be a great
      > step for Ada.
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      To trade Ada's soul for that? This sounds very satanic. :(
      -- 
      Adrian Hoe
      m a i l b o x AT a d r i a n h o e . c o m

Re: Microsoft & Ada (and also a remark on DTDs prohibiting economic success)

[Georg Bauhaus]

Robert C. Leif <rleif@rleif.com> wrote:
:   Any one of the present competitors
: could have stopped Microsoft, if they made reliable well engineered
: products.  Instead the competitors use Java and XML DTDs.  When the economy
: functions correctly, stupid business men go broke.

I think it's not very smart to judge XML DTDs by narrowing one's
view down to records numeric medical data. 8-) Likewise, rockstable
proven software without much need to manually debug data streams can
profit from the use of a scheme like ASN.1.

-- Georg

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Pascal Obry]

Adrian Hoe <AdrianHoe@nowhere.com> writes:

> of confusion. Do you think Ada will be benefit from this? I doubt so.

I truly think so... but of course I could be wrong :)

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|              http://www.obry.org
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

Re: Microsoft & Ada

[Adrian Hoe]

Robert C. Leif wrote:
>       Faustian would be a better term.  However, if we get lucky, making any
> reasonable deal with Microsoft would be much better than our present
> diminished prospects.  All that I wish for in the .Net world is that Ada is
> brought up to be equal to Eiffel.  
>       If Microsoft should discover Ada or SPARK, more power to them.  I am
> on the side of any group of capitalists who use Ada.  If the new Ada users
> demolish their competition, I will rejoice.  Frankly, I believe that Ada can
> provide Microsoft with something better than money, a chance to make their
> competitors look like a group of fools.  Any one of the present competitors
> could have stopped Microsoft, if they made reliable well engineered
> products.  Instead the competitors use Java and XML DTDs.  When the economy
> functions correctly, stupid business men go broke.  I might feel sorry for
> the average shareholders; however, this is the way capitalism is supposed to
> work.


If M$ uses Ada to develop its Windows and other products, and they get 
hell lot of good quality and stability and they cut their pricing, I 
would consider to go back to Windows.

Right now, I am comfortable with Mac OS X and Linux. And I enjoy 
developing in Ada on OS made of C. :-)

-- 
Adrian Hoe
m a i l b o x AT a d r i a n h o e . c o m