Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!longway!std-unix
From: std-unix@longway.TIC.COM (Moderator, John S. Quarterman)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: POSIX flame...
Message-ID: <345@longway.TIC.COM>
Date: 16 May 89 18:48:31 GMT
References: <8905151814.AA14787@linus.MITRE.ORG>;
Reply-To: uunet!uiunix!ahby (Shane McCarron)
Lines: 45
Approved: jsq@longway.tic.com (Moderator, John S. Quarterman)

To: dee@linus.mitre.org (David E. Emery)
Cc: std-unix, jsq@longway.tic.com
From: uunet!uiunix!ahby (Shane McCarron)

> However, I take significant exception to the implication that the
> 1003.5 committee "does not understand Unix."  This is particularly
> true when you look at the expressed attitude of the rest of 1003, that
> "we don't care about Ada", or at best "we don't have time to learn
> Ada".  We have a major problem when Ada and Unix clash, a problem I
> don't think that the rest of P1003 can appreciate (given their narrow
> C focus).

I guess that I may have said something a little strong here.  However,
I am not ready to retract the statement.  There were many people at
the Minneapolis meeting last fall who were not at all aquainted with
the semantics of fundamental parts of Unix.  As an example, I would
point to the misconception (by all of the group, if I remember
correctly) that if you call getcwd() with a NULL pointer, and then
later changed directories with a chdir(), then the string pointed to
by that previous call would be replaced by the new pathname!  This is
hardly a full understanding.

So, while I believe that the Ada vendor community is fully behind
getting Ada on Unix, I am not convinced that the expertise is in the
committee to completely specify the interfaces.  Fortunately, now that 1003.5 
is meeting in conjunction with the rest of the POSIX committees, there is
good possibility of liaison and consultation.  That should result in a
better, more complete specification.  Couple that with the intent of
1003.5 to go to mock ballot soon, which will get their document much
more exposure, and you have a very promising view of the future.

I would also like to address the comment about an apparent lack of interest 
in Ada by the other POSIX committees.  You're right.  That's the nicest
way to say it.  Why?  Because the C programmers of the world (many of
them) don't take Ada seriously.  As such, they are probably being
unjust.  Until they realize that Ada is a real power in the future of
programming, they are not going to take it seriously.  This has
resulted, unfortunately, in the rest of the POSIX committee members
not really looking too closely at the Ada effort.  This is a mistake,
there is no excuse for it, but that's just the way it is.
--
Shane P. McCarron			ATT:	+1 201 263-8400
Project Manager				UUCP:	mccarron@uiunix.UUCP

Volume-Number: Volume 16, Number 42