🚀 go-pugleaf

>    Ada has validated compilers for a very wide variety of platforms,
>    several hundred compilers in fact.

That's nice. But are they compatible in the all-important O/S interface
libraries? That's where most languages fall flat on their face. I know ADA
is supposed to provide it's own O/S, but we all know how popular standalone
programs are these days...

>    main source of portability problems has been operating system-dependent 
>    things such as screen I/O, and the preferred technique has usually been
>    to isolate such things in small, well-defined packages whose package body
>    (implementation) is adapted to the new environment.

That technique is no particular virtue of ADA, and it's no particular virtue
at all. You can do the same in any language. The point is that in C that part
has already been standardised. And not just for screen I/O. I don't know how
far ADA goes into file I/O (the book I have on it doesn't mention files at
all), but the C file model happens to be widely portable and broad enough for
most purposes.

As you say, there *will be* a standard. Well, we'll see. When I can copy files
and type "make" and expect the program to compile and run I'll believe it.

>    In case it's *that* important that you be able
>    to not lift a finger, maybe it would indeed be best to wait a few years.

But I've *been* programming in C for ten years now. Why should I wait for
your all-singing all-dancing standard? Dozens of languages have come out with
the same promises you've just made. None of them have delivered.

Why don't *you* wait a few years until portable ADA is real before trying
to convince folks to leave something that works?

One of the BIG advantages of ADA is supposed to be software reusability. If
you can't reuse the software merely because you've upgraded to a SPARC from
your old VAX, what good is it?
-- 
 _--_|\  `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/      \  'U`
\_.--._/
      v