Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!swrinde!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!husc6!bu-cs!encore!jcallen
From: jcallen@Encore.COM (Jerry Callen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada & IBM
Message-ID: <10407@encore.Encore.COM>
Date: 20 Nov 89 04:53:32 GMT
References: <7056@hubcap.clemson.edu> <20600018@inmet>
Reply-To: jcallen@encore.UUCP (Jerry Callen)
Organization: Encore Computer Corp, Marlboro, MA
Lines: 28

In article <20600018@inmet> ryer@inmet.inmet.com writes:
>
>Last I heard, Ada is not on the list of _acceptable_ languages for IBM's
>SAA (Systems Application Architecture?) applications.  (SAA is IBM's big
>new advance in portability and interoperability and a fundamental part
>of their strategy for computing in the 90's).  If a program
>is coded in Ada, it can't comply with SAA, regardless of any other
>compatibility or interfaces.  Has this changed?  It is easy to write
>a brochure, but where's the beef?
>

>Mike Ryer
>(personal comment, not endorsed by my employer, Intermetrics)

Hi, Mike! Actually, the "SAA Languages" are just the languages
that IBM is promising to keep _compatible_ on all of the SAA "platforms."
(Geez, I hate that psuedo-word.) Just because a language isn't supported
by IBM as an SAA language doesn't mean you can't _use_ the language on
an SAA system. In particular, I think it behooves IBM to come up with a 
standard set of Ada bindings to the various SAA subsystems (communications
and database, especially) that WOULD be portable across the SAA
platforms. After all, Ada is already totally portable, eh? :-)

-- Jerry Callen
   ...!{uunet, gould, maybe others}!encore!jcallen
   jcallen@encore.encore.com

   Do what you want to with my signature, but leave my employer alone!