From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1rio_Amado_Alves?= Message-ID: <4a4de33a.0305120603.68409800@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit References: <4a4de33a.0305090734.8277dd8@posting.google.com>, <3EBC79C1.3020106@null.net> Subject: [9fans] Re: Ada for Plan9 yet? Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 15:15:51 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: a95ce946-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > One would really need a whole environment, and so far as > I am aware nobody using Plan 9 has sufficient interest > in supporting Ada. Nobody *developing* Plan 9, maybe. Users exist, and surely people atracted to Plan 9, who happen to be Adaists. I hope there is no language 'politics' going on around Plan 9. > Remember, Plan 9 is a research tool, > not a DoD-product platform. Wrong assumption? Ada is on the 'desktop' now. I am myself a researcher (in computer science). My lab currently runs a Linux LAN. Some Windows on laptops. I see Plan 9 as a solution to many system administration and hardware allocation problems we currently have. Languages we use are Ada, C, Prolog, R, and others. I'll try a small Plan 9 installation soon and see how far I can get compiling GNAT or another free Ada compiler on it. I suspect the only big problem that may arise is in the area of concurrency, as I think GNAT uses a thread library to implement Ada tasks, and Plan 9 has a different scheme. On the other hand, I see Plan 9 as a much better environment to implement the DSA (Distributed Systems Annex), Ada distributed computing features. (Even WRT the threads, from what I've read so far, it seems easy to map Linux threads to Plan 9 processes which BTW I also find a better concurrency scheme, actually also more in line with Ada's concurrency model.) Thanks, --Marius