RE: INFO-ADA Digest V93 #359

RE: INFO-ADA Digest V93 #359

[Larry Keeler]

In Message-ID: <EMERY.93Jun2132328@goldfinger.mitre.org>
	emery@mitre-bedford.arpa  (David Emery) writes:

>Much of the stuff you're asking for, particularly dealing with
>directories, are not language issues, but operating system issues.
>That's why there are C and Ada (and FORTRAN) bindings to POSIX.  
>
>The POSIX/Ada binding covers both command line arguments and access to
>directories, as well as a lot of other "unix-like" stuff.  
>
>Look for some string handling packages from the Ada Technology
>Insertion Program later this year (coming attractions...).
>
>				dave

Exactly!  But the C (and coincidentally C++) bindings are so well integrated 
with the C language that many people do not realize when they are using o/s
features vs language features, when they are programming in C.  Such is not the
 
case, and will not be the case (from what I heard at Tri-Ada92), when one wishe
s
to use Unix operating system features when programming in Ada.  It is my under-
standing that the Unix-C (C++) community has mandated that no POSIX bindings to
any language other than C or C++ may be well integrated.  No doubt this
unannounced "mandate" has been of considerable commercial benefit to the 
C/C++ commercial community.  Of course one would expect that Unix, written in C
,
would have an advantage, but many of the additional raodblocks which have been 
put up, regarding whether thick or thin bindings may be included in the 
standard, and what must be done to get it approved as a standard appear to be
for other than techically sound reasons. (I have heard it suggested that Ada 
should have its own operating system, but I think that this would serve to 
isolate it still more.)  For Ada to be more widely used it needs strong 
bindings to the operating system.  Without them, congressional mandate or no, 
Ada is left out with the also rans.  

Re: INFO-ADA Digest V93 #359

[David Emery]

Naive users of C don't understand the distinction between the standard
library and the basic language.  This is certainly not true of good C
programmers, particularly those concerned with portability across
platforms.  One of the strengths of C is the rich 'standard library'
that came with Unix.  ANSI C adopts and standardizes much of this
environment.  

The C++ community has expressed no particular desire for a C++ POSIX
binding, for instance.  They seem content to make use of existing C
interfaces in many case.  (I think this is a mistake, as it surrenders
all of the advantages of C++ at this interface, which is a critical
design boundary.  It's too easy to propogate interface mistakes, and
dropping down into C invites trouble later on in the program...)

The Ada community (despite Greg's rantings) has been very active in
sharing code and reuse.  Unfortunately, much of this code required net
access, which was not common in many production shops until recently.
The ATIP program, in particular, has focused towards producing
bindings and reusable components (e.g.  the ADAR packages for decimal
arithmetic.)  

The Ada9X effort has acknowleged the importance of a rich set of
'standard packages', and it will be very interesting to see how the
various 9X annexes (e.g. Real-Time, Information Systems, etc) work
out.  There are a lot of secondary/associated standards, such as the
ISO mathematical functions packages and the various binding efforts
such as POSIX, SAMeDL, etc.  

Perhaps the problem is that no one has really done a good job of
pulling this stuff together and presenting it to the community.

				dave

Re: INFO-ADA Digest V93 #359

[cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!seas.gwu.edu!mfeld]

In article <EMERY.93Jun8102111@goldfinger.mitre.org> emery@goldfinger.mitre.org
 (David Emery) writes:
>
>The Ada9X effort has acknowleged the importance of a rich set of
>'standard packages', and it will be very interesting to see how the
>various 9X annexes (e.g. Real-Time, Information Systems, etc) work
>out.  There are a lot of secondary/associated standards, such as the
>ISO mathematical functions packages and the various binding efforts
>such as POSIX, SAMeDL, etc.  
>
>Perhaps the problem is that no one has really done a good job of
>pulling this stuff together and presenting it to the community.
>

Aha! Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. There really is a lot
of good stuff out there, but no really effective information source.
On bindings, the nearest one gets is a report by the AdaIC called
"Available Ada Bindings" or some such thing. The two possible problems
with this are

(1) AdaIC has not historically been aggressive in collecting information,
much better at processing what others send them. AdaIC is becoming much
more proactive, though.

(2) As an AJPO-funded organization, AdaIC must be scrupulously neutral
and impartial. All they can do is crank out lists of things; they are
neither technically nor politically able to _review_ them.

Now THERE's a job for Greg! I wish somebody could find a way to pay
him to do what he seems to do well: collect data and express opinions!
Anybody got some bucks to slip him?

Another approach is to create an FAQ list to which people could send
reviews of Ada-related software products and bindings. Maybe if we
work REALLY hard at it, we could even make this newsgroup such a forum.
Then the good stuff could get put into an FAQ by some willing volunteer.

'Course we'd have to agree to quit the flamewars, otherwise precisely the
folks who ought to be reading the group will get bored and disappear.

What say you, net-landers?

Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Feldman -  co-chair, SIGAda Education Committee
Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The George Washington University -  Washington, DC 20052 USA
202-994-5253 (voice) - 202-994-5296 (fax) - mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: INFO-ADA Digest V93 #359

[Kenneth Anderson]

In comp.lang.ada you write:

>What say you, net-landers?

I like the idea, and may even be willing to take on the job of maintaining
the FAQ...

>Mike
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Michael B. Feldman -  co-chair, SIGAda Education Committee
>Professor, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
>The George Washington University -  Washington, DC 20052 USA
>202-994-5253 (voice) - 202-994-5296 (fax) - mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Internet)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Ken Anderson                           |  "I'd much rather live in perfection,
U.C. Irvine                            |   than deal with reality." -- Kenbod
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Happy! Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy! Joy!    |  Practice random kindness and
                         -- Stimpy     |  senseless acts of beauty.
                                       |  -- Anne Herbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Re: INFO-ADA Digest V93 #359

[Gregory Aharonian]

Dave Emery rants:
>The Ada community (despite Greg's rantings) has been very active in
>sharing code and reuse.  Unfortunately, much of this code required net
>access, which was not common in many production shops until recently.
>The ATIP program, in particular, has focused towards producing
>bindings and reusable components (e.g.  the ADAR packages for decimal
>arithmetic.)  

 Ever hear of CDROMs?  If the DoD was interested in getting its Ada codes
out there, it would throw all of ASSET, STARS, DSRO, VCOE, KBSA, WAM,
CAMP, etc onto a CDROM and really promote software reuse.  The DoD has
been very inactive in promoting software reuse, unless it's the kind of
socialist bureaucratic control system setup by ASSET.

 Why doesn't MITRE apply for a contract to learn about CDROMs, and then
go instruct ASSET, DSRO, VCOE and all the others on this technology?
Every other agency in the government is doing it.  Why can't the amply
funded DoD take advantage of CDROMs.  Rant about that, not about me.

-- 
**************************************************************************
 Greg Aharonian
 Source Translation & Optimization
 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

Re: INFO-ADA Digest V93 #359

[David Emery]

Gee, Greg, you can't have it both ways.  You complain that the
government undercuts your reuse business, and then you want the
government to produce CD-ROMs.  There are 2 (count them) CD-ROM's full
of Ada currently in production.  MITRE is not permitted to compete
with private industry, and as a policy government tries to avoid doing
work that can be done by the private sector.  

Incidentally, which CD-ROM format do you suggest?  Have *YOU*
considered publishing a CD-ROM?  Frankly, 3 1/2" 720kb DOS formatted
disks are about the most universal medium I know.  There are a heluva
lot more people with PC's (and Mac's that can read PC disks, and Suns,
etc that can read PC disks) than there are CD-ROM readers...

				dave

Re: INFO-ADA Digest V93 #359

[Gregory Aharonian]

Dave Emery:
>Gee, Greg, you can't have it both ways.  You complain that the
>government undercuts your reuse business, and then you want the
>government to produce CD-ROMs.  There are 2 (count them) CD-ROM's full
>of Ada currently in production.  MITRE is not permitted to compete
>with private industry, and as a policy government tries to avoid doing
>work that can be done by the private sector.  

    Look, CDROM distribution has little impact on software reuse business.
Cost effect software reuse is technology transfer, and requires a lot more
than CD-ROMs full with software. So I don't care if the DoD did send out
CD-ROMs.  My point is that the DoD id funding three software reuse centers,
which could be replaced by one guy with a CD-ROM printer, who would be
more effective than the current DoD efforts.  No matter how you look at
it, ASSET/VCOE/DSRO are a duplicative waste of money.  So when you said
that the DoD is effectively promoting reuse, you're wrong, as illustrated
by the shutting down of the SIMTEL-Ada repository, the inability of the
socialist bureacrats at ASSET to use the Internet and USENET, the lack
of interest by the DoD in my massive database of all of the government's
software, etc.

  Withr regards to MITRE, and all of the other FFRDC's, you do compete with
the private sector.  In fact there was an article in the May 20, 1993, issue
of Washington Technology talking about how the Professional Services Council
(130 federal contractors) is waging battle in Washington to "stop what we
think is unwarranted growth" by FFRDCs like MITRE, SEI, IDA and RAND.
Times must be tough when you guys start turning on each other.

>Incidentally, which CD-ROM format do you suggest?  Have *YOU*
>considered publishing a CD-ROM?  Frankly, 3 1/2" 720kb DOS formatted
>disks are about the most universal medium I know.  There are a heluva
>lot more people with PC's (and Mac's that can read PC disks, and Suns,
>etc that can read PC disks) than there are CD-ROM readers...

With all of the money the DoD is wasting on its current software
reuse efforts, it can afford to support all of the formats, though even
supporting a few would well cover the PC/MAC/SUN market.  Someone wants
to give me some money, I'd be glad to put my massive databases on CDROMS
and distribute them more widely.  But unlike the freeloaders at ASSET etc.
I have to pay for this stuff out of the very limited profits (i.e. none)
I make with my business.

The DoD has absolutely no interest in wide-scale software reuse, only
in wide-scale control of reuse activities. The three current efforts at
ASSET/VCOE/DSRO would last at most two weeks if they had to become a real
business and charge people for their products and services.  Their 
operations are based on nonsense economics, they show no interest in
the operations of reuse businessmen like myself, who do orders more for
orders less money, they make no use of computer technology and the Internet,
they have no skills in locating software around the country, and are not
subject to any qualified peer review.  I can go into any DoD lab and find
tons of Ada software publicly available that is not in any of these
repositories.

Say what you want about other things, but when it comes to software reuse,
the DoD doesn't care about being effective, about supporting the private
sector, and about enforcing new contract procurement regulations asking
contractors to submit list of available reusable software.

   I just hope the current DoD study of the economics of the reuse centers
tells the truth about this waste.  At least they have a trained economist
conducting the study, probably a first.

Greg
-- 
**************************************************************************
 Greg Aharonian
 Source Translation & Optimization
 P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

Re: INFO-ADA Digest V93 #359

[asuvax!ennews!mcdphx!schbbs!tigger!tannen]

Greg,

When it comes to DoD and Ada reuse centers you are mostly correct.  I have used
my Asset account to both get software out of their repository and as a way
into the net.  I have had trouble locating software in the Asset repository,
their scheme for storing material is confusing (IMHO).  Fortunately they have
people who work there who care about helping Asset users get what they want.

It would be great if all DoD software was cataloged, sorted and stored in a
central repository.  Of course it would need a connection to Internet, plus som
e
dialup lines for folks to use with their modems.  It would also be helpful if
they could ship the software in CDROM, floppy disk (DOS,Mac, etc) or tapes of
various sizes and types.

But none of this is going to happen.  Too bad.  Everyone is protecting their 
turf (i.e. Capitalism at its best - what is best for _ME_.) 

BTW, it has been easier for me to get Pascal source code than Ada source code. 
 
All I do is ask in comp.lang.pascal and the Prof who is managing an ftp site 
tells me where to look.

Of course that comp.lang newsgroup has few flame wars vs this one. (Of course
I just added to the flamewar, oh well :)

David Tannen

Re: INFO-ADA Digest V93 #359

[cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!linus]

In article <1993Jun9.193003.5499@schbbs.mot.com>, tannen@tigger.geg.mot.com (Da
vid Tannen x8273) writes:In article <1993Jun9.193003.5499@schbbs.mot.com>, tann
en@tigger.geg.mot.com (David Tannen x8273) writes:
|> Greg,
|> 
|> When it comes to DoD and Ada reuse centers you are mostly correct.  I have u
sed
|> my Asset account to both get software out of their repository and as a way
|> into the net.  I have had trouble locating software in the Asset repository,
|> their scheme for storing material is confusing (IMHO).  Fortunately they hav
e
|> people who work there who care about helping Asset users get what they want.
I found that a really efficient way to use ASSET is to download and print
their current catalog (ASSET_A_139), and then browse thru that offline.
Then you can just go into the menu front-end and search for and extract
assets by number.  I've asked them to create a get command for the UNIX command
line level, to allow a user to issue a command like "get ASSET_A_xxx", but they
have not yet done so.  A get command would be simpler yet.

|> 
|> It would be great if all DoD software was cataloged, sorted and stored in a
|> central repository.  Of course it would need a connection to Internet, plus 
some
|> dialup lines for folks to use with their modems.  It would also be helpful i
f
|> they could ship the software in CDROM, floppy disk (DOS,Mac, etc) or tapes o
f
|> various sizes and types.
Third-party companies, like STO, seem to be doing this kind of thing.  However,
there is a Reuse Library Interoperability Group (RIG) which is working to tie
ASSET, CARDS, and DSRS together.  I think they would like more repositories
to join in.  I've already started to see items from CARDS appear in ASSET.

|> 
|> But none of this is going to happen.  Too bad.  Everyone is protecting their
 
|> turf (i.e. Capitalism at its best - what is best for _ME_.) 
Yes and no.  In the face of diminishing budgets, I think they are working
together better.

|> 
|> BTW, it has been easier for me to get Pascal source code than Ada source cod
e.  
|> All I do is ask in comp.lang.pascal and the Prof who is managing an ftp site
 
|> tells me where to look.
There is nothing like having access to a "good old boy."  Often is the easiest
way, even tho it depends upon him volunteering his time (or sometimes being
paid for his time) to help you.  Keith Petersen of the MSDOS archive on SIMTEL2
0
is a "good old boy" like the Prof you mention, but Keith is being paid and plan
s
to stop work when SIMTEL20 (and his funding) goes away.  That will leave Timo
Salmi of University of Vassa, Finland, to run GARBO as the only operational
MSDOS archive, until, of course, Timo decides to go away.  But then again, mayb
e
someone will pick up the slack.

|> 
|> Of course that comp.lang newsgroup has few flame wars vs this one. (Of cours
e
|> I just added to the flamewar, oh well :)
|> 
|> David Tannen
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
Rick Conn

Re: INFO-ADA Digest V93 #359

[David Helken]

I'm certainly jumping onto this bandwagon. It sounds very similar to the
announce group I polled this group about in May. The only time I was able to
get a current binding was to get on the ASIS wg mailing list. When the
announcement was mailed to people on the list, I was notified in turn,
requested, received, and ACTUALLY COMPILED(!!!) the ASIS binding specs. I'd
like to get the POSIX bindings, but no go yet. It is painful to wade through
all the crap in order to get to the pearls. So, I vote yes, and would help, you
Ken, in any way I can. It is time to get off our collective butts and do
something like lighting a candle instead of just cursing the darkness...

	Dave