mjl@cs.rit.edu (11/21/89)
In article <7053@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes: >> In particular, the >> ordinary systems which most people will be seeing in front of them for the >> next 5 - 15 years, UNIX systems and PCs, will not run Ada accepteably. > > > A prime example is Unix; the current POSIX effort aims to > standardize 1960's technology, thus resulting in a "lowest > common denominator" which locks users into obsolescence. Actually, both Unix and Ada are products of the 1970's. The difference is that Unix, being primarily of commercial interest, has been able to evolve, whereas Ada, a government sponsored thing-a-ma-bob, has stagnated. It's a shrine to the ideas of 1975, both good and bad. The fact that Unix has evolved in ways incompatible with Ada says as at least as much about Ada as it does about Unix. I followed the development of Ada from its inception as Strawman, and became increasingly more depressed as the work proceeded. The good concepts Ada embodies are overwhelmed by its complexity (see Hoare's excellent discussion of this in his Turing Lecture -- all of his comments still apply). Ada is the PL/I of the 70's, unusable until the mid-80's; is it destined to be the choke-collar of DoD software development in the 90's? Mike Lutz Mike Lutz Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY UUCP: {rutgers,cornell}!rochester!rit!mjl INTERNET: mjlics@ultb.isc.rit.edu
sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) (11/25/89)
Michael Lutz (mjl@prague.UUCP) writes: >Actually, both Unix and Ada are products of the 1970's. The difference >is that Unix, being primarily of commercial interest, has been able to >evolve, Now, if Unix has been able to evolve why hasn't it done that? It still looks like a remnant from the sixties to me. -- Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se