home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: galaxy.ucr.edu!not-for-mail
- From: thp@cs.ucr.edu (Tom Payne)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu
- Subject: Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada
- Followup-To: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.edu
- Date: 2 Apr 1996 15:56:48 GMT
- Organization: University of California, Riverside
- Message-ID: <4jrio0$ork@galaxy.ucr.edu>
- References: <JSA.96Feb16135027@organon.com> <31582A63.4BE9@east.thomsoft.com> <4jeel1$erh@tpd.dsccc.com> <JSA.96Mar29195546@organon.com> <4jp388$d56@tpd.dsccc.com> <828445854snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: corvette.ucr.edu
- X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
-
- Lawrence Kirby (fred@genesis.demon.co.uk) wrote:
- : In article <4jp388$d56@tpd.dsccc.com>
- : kcline@sun132.spd.dsccc.com "Kevin Cline" writes:
- :
- : >As usual, you missed the point, Jon. Different Ada-83 compiler vendors
- : >provided different bindings to key functionality like UNIX OS calls
- : >and X/Motif. Of course these bindings were proprietary.
- : >
- : >This was never a problem for C code. ANSI-C compilers have been available
- : >for every platform you can name for many years, so porting C code from
- : >one vendor's compiler to another was never a big problem.
- :
- : ANSI C doesn't define UNIX OS calls so isn't really relevant to your point.
- : Unix calls are reasonably standardised for C through the likes of POSIX and
- : X/Open which is natural because C is the core development language for
- : the platform.
-
- There is, as I understand, a POSIX standard for Ada bindings, which
- I've not seen mentioned in this discussion. I'd like to know more
- about it. What is its state of development? Does GNAT support it?
-
- Tom Payne (thp@cs.ucr.edu)
-