HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: Re: Guest account at Center for Software Reuse
Organization: The World
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:28:26 GMT


>The Center for Software Reuse Operations (CSRO) Customer Assistance
>Office (CAO) has disable the guest account due to security issues.

This pathetic excuse for shutting down an entire reuse operation reminds
of the secrecy crap at the Software Engineering Institute.  I was there
a few years ago, went to the entrance, and asked to see if I could use
the SEI library.  The guard at the front desk informed me that no one could
walk unescorted throughout the SEI building.  I suppose like CSRO that some
parts of the SEI building had classified stuff, but with all of the money
they have to waste, in both cases, it is pure incompetency to have to
completely restrict access to the entire facilities.

After all, I can get into my car, drive to Hanscom Air Force Base, and
walk completely unescorted into the headquarters of the Electronic Systems
Division, which funds all of these efforts, and which has more classified
stuff onsite than either CSRO or SEI.

In thes cases, control access is less for security and more for incompetence
covering.  That none of the DoD reuse efforts have managed to figure out
or cared to use anonymous ftp and USENET to circulate Ada codes just shows
the levels of incompetence attained (given that 1000s of times more C and
C++ software is readily available over the Internet).  As I have heard too
often for middle level DoDer's, "all we have to do is spend our money.
What's done with the money is irrelevant as long as it is legal".

Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimization

-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
From: Maxim A.Titov <xim@bk901.exnet.msk.su>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: <none>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 18:09:15 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: InterEVM (dep. 044)
Reply-To: xim@bk901.exnet.msk.su

CHECK


Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
From: spray@convex.com (Rob Spray)
Subject: Re: Programs wanted
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:35:27 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1993Jan26.133513.5440@linus.mitre.org> drodman@hotel.mitre.org (David B Rodman) writes:

>In article <1993Jan25.180334.4567@wvnvms.wvnet.edu> pk115050@wvnvms.wvnet.edu writes:
>>
>>1. Determine the number of nodes and edges that are present in a piece of
>>ADA code.
>>
>>2. Determine the following from a piece of ADA code:
>>   A. The number of unique operators.
>>   B. The number of unique operands.
>>   C. The total number of operators.
>>   D. The total number of operands.
>>
>>Any help will be appreciated.
>>

>I have to agree with Dave Emery, what you are asking for is alot. I doubt 
>...

Hmm, from the original poster's address that looks like a student
account.  A new semester has started, so it would not be unreasonable
to presume that some student is turning to The Net to get a head start
on some project.  It wouldn't be the first time.  (I recall one flamefest
a while back where some professor requested netters not to respond
to some student request for information saying that he should find
it by himself.  Of course one outcome was to spur folks like me into
action and send reams of references to the student, since asking the
Net seemed like a perfectly bona fide method of research.  But, I digress!)

As the Daves have pointed out, the scope of the request is far larger 
than I suspect the poster anticipates.  Maybe the educator posed the problem
and let the student pick the language, in which case, education has
already taken place!  But what if the problem was posed using ADA(sic).
How does this reflect upon the "educator"?

Tell me I'm presuming too much.

--Rob   spray@convex.com
From: hso6230@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (Greg A Buskirk)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Guest account at Center for Software Reuse
Date: 22 Jan 93 13:37:41 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus

From article <1993Jan19.223357.24513@nosc.mil>, by psm@nosc.mil (Scot Mcintosh):
> According to the literature I got from the DoD Center
> for Software Reuse, I should be able to telnet to
> 134.152.8.22 and login as GUEST for purposes of
> browsing the database. It doesn't work. Anyone know
> if the guest browse capability has been disabled?
> If so, I have a few uncharitable thoughts regarding
> DoD's inept marketing of the language, of which this
> is but one example.
> 
> -- 
> ----
> Scot McIntosh
> Internet: psm%helios.nosc.mil@nosc.mil
> UUCP:     I have no idea



The Center for Software Reuse Operations (CSRO) Customer Assistance
Office (CAO) has disable the guest account due to security issues.
If you need to get in to contact with them the following information
is pertinent:

Address: 500 North Washington Street, Suite 101
	 Falls Church, Virginia 22046
	 (703) 536-7485 [voice]
	 (703) 536-5640 [fax]
         (703) 285-5418 [modem access]
	 134.152.8.22   [DDN access]

The POC at the CSRO for security issues would be : Ginny Parsms

I hope this helps you !!!!

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%



Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
From: jhb@dale.cts.com (John Bollenbacher)
Subject: Re: Comments on Ada vs. C++ panel
Organization: Titan Linkabit Corporation
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 21:07:14 GMT

Dag Bruck (dag@bellman.control.lth.se) wrote:
: Last week there was a panel on Ada vs. C++ in Monterey.  Would anyone
: who attended post a personal report on comp.lang.ada?
: 

Does anyone know whether there will be anything published from this event?

: Thanks in advance.

Ditto.

: 
: Dag Bruck
: --
: Department of Automatic Control		E-mail: dag@control.lth.se
: Lund Institute of Technology
: P. O. Box 118				Phone:	+46 46-104287
: S-221 00 Lund, SWEDEN			Fax:    +46 46-138118

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- John Bollenbacher                                        jhb@dale.cts.com -
- Titan Linkabit Corp.                                       (619) 552-9963 -
- 3033 Science Park Rd.                                                     -
- San Diego, Ca. 92121                                                      -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kanderso@mabillon.ICS.UCI.EDU (Kenneth Anderson)
Subject: Re: private types and recompilation
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 28 Jan 93 01:22:24 GMT

In comp.lang.ada you write:

>When Ada 83 was designed, why did the designers choose to put
>the details of private types in package specifications, rather than
>in package bodies (which is more in the spirit of information hiding, and
>better supports independent compilation).

I'm not sure, but I think because the compiler needs to know the size
of the types so that it can allocate space for parameters in the
subprograms that are defined in the spec.


>generic
>  type ATOM is private;
>package LIST_ADT is
>  type POSITION is private;
>  type LIST is private;
>  procedure CREATE(L: in out LIST);
>  procedure INSERT_AFTER(L: in out LIST; P: POSITION; A: ATOM);
>  ...

>private
>  type LIST;
>  type POSITION is access LIST;

You only need the previous two lines.  The declaration below can be
hidden in the body of the package.

>  type LIST is record
>    A: ATOM;
>    NEXT: POSITION;
>  end record;
>end LIST_ADT;


>-Dave Erickson

Ken
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Anderson                           |  "I'd much rather live in perfection,
U.C. Irvine                            |   than deal with reality." -- Kenbod
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Happy! Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy! Joy!    |  Practice random kindness and
                         -- Stimpy     |  senseless acts of beauty.
                                       |  -- Anne Herbert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: beidler@guinness.cs.uofs.edu (Jack Beidler)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Comments on Ada vs. C++ panel
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:34:31 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

The Ada vs. C++ Panel at ASEET-7  was a good wrap up to a good 
conference.   Jerry Schwarz did a good job presenting the case
for C++.  Jerry was very honest about C++ and its C foundation.

On the other side, seeing RObert Dewar in action was a real treat.
I got the impression that Dewar knew more about C and C++ than
C and C++ programmers know about Ada.  No, let me rephrase that:
Dewar knows more about C and C++ than C and C++ programmers know
(or will admit they know) about C and C++. :-)
-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  John (Jack) Beidler				                   |
|  Prof. of Computer Science Internet: BEIDLER@JAGUAR.UOFS.ED      |
|  University of Scranton              beidler@guinness.cs.uofs.edu|
|  Scranton, PA 18510	      Bitnet : BEIDLER@SCRANTON            |
|                                                                  |
|          Phone: (717) 941-7446	 FAX:   (717) 941-4250     |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: SAHARBAUGH@ROO.FIT.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: old Ada Letters, any value?
Date: 22 Jan 93 13:54:00 GMT
Organization: The Internet

I have old Ada Letters going way back.  Do they have any
market value?  Anyone need them for a library etc.?
sam harbaugh SAHARBAUGH@ROO.FIT.EDU
From: alex@cs.umd.edu (Alex Blakemore)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: In defense of Greg
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:07:43 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <1993Jan25.114636.10496@sei.cmu.edu> progers@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (Pat Rogers) writes:
  >>Greg Aharonian
  >>Source Translation & Optimiztion
  >>P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

> Perhaps they recognized you.  :)

I see the smiley and realize Pat is teasing, but I must state that I
appreciate many of Greg's posts. His role as a devil's advocate is
very useful in keeping us from believing our own press releases.
Ada has been extremely slow in gaining industry acceptance.
More slow than it deserves if technical quality of the language
were the primary consideration.

The Ada community (and the government in particular) would be well
served if we looked carefully at the rapid spread of C++ and the
very slow growth of Ada to date.  We need to understand this
phenomenah and then possibly modify our behavior if we want Ada to
succeed.

This requires low cost high quality compilers, aggressive but honest
marketing by govt and industry, fixing shortcomings of Ada83, making
Ada work better in mixed language environments, (possibly) stricter
enforcement of the mandate, much better support for Ada reuse -
(dont deny ftp access to reuse libraries, we _want_ people to browse
and reuse Ada code), clear statements in support of Ada from
goverment, support for Ada introduction into universities.

Ada will not succeed in the market merely by sponsoring studies to
come to the prearranged conclusion that it already has captured the
market.

The Ada9X project seems to recognize much of this, but not the rest
of Dod.  Most of these changes are only in attitude and will - few
require much money, especially compared to what's been spent on Ada
to date.  None of this will ensure Ada's success, but doing the
opposite is sure to harm Ada's acceptance.  And then we'll all be
trying to remember to type break; before case for the rest of our
careers.

Anyway, I appreciate most of Greg's postings because he points these
things out so clearly. They do tend to start endless flame wars (:.  
Perhaps we dont like reading them  - but that doesnt mean we should
ignore them.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------
Alex Blakemore alex@cs.umd.edu   NeXT mail accepted
From: rowe@umbc.edu (Mr. Kenneth Rowe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Guest account at Center for Software Reuse
Date: 26 Jan 1993 15:43:49 -0500
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
NNTP-Posting-Host: umbc7.umbc.edu

Greg,
Two questions:
     Have you thought about calling DSRO to apply for an account?
(Because of Export Controlled material there needs to be individual
accountability)  [703-536-6900].
     Because everyone else does it differently, does that make them right?

Ken.



Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
From: breland@cobweb.mcc.com (Mark A. Breland)
Subject: Re: Why and how do organizations select th
Reply-To: breland@cobweb.mcc.com
Organization: MCC
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:07:04 GMT

In article 24708@alice.att.com, bs@alice.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup) writes:
>
>breland@cobweb.mcc.com (Mark A. Breland @ MCC) writes
>>
>> Careful now, the overtaxed people trying to get their job done usually
>> would give anything to learn something new that will ease their workload.
>
>I know. I know very well. However, many organizations seem significantly
>less able to adapt to circumstanses and to make rational decisions than the
>individuals out of which such organization are composed. 

A most diplomatic indictment, of which I am in total agreement.

---
Mark A. Breland - Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC)
Ada Fault Tolerance                               | voice:    (512) 338-3509
3500 West Balcones Center Drive                   | FAX:      (512) 338-3900
Austin, Texas 78759-6509   USA                    | internet: breland@mcc.com

Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
From: dag@seldon.control.lth.se (Dag Bruck)
Subject: Re: Comments on Ada vs. C++ panel
Organization: Department of Automatic Control, Lund, Sweden
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:23:56 GMT

>>>Last week there was a panel on Ada vs. C++ in Monterey.  Would anyone
>>>who attended post a personal report on comp.lang.ada?
>
>>No, please don't!!!

I asked for information about the panel in an earlier posting.  I
think I have a few good reasons:

	1.  The panel was organized by ASEET, which makes it somewhat
	    more interesting than the average netnews mudslinging match.

	2.  Some very interesting people were on the panel, including
	    Robert Dewar and Jerry Schwarz.

	3.  I was invited to participate, but had to say no.

If you listened to the panel discussion but think comp.lang.ada is not
mature enough, please e-mail me your impressions.  I will not harrass
you with comments unles you ask for them.

Best regards,

Dag M. Bruck
From: Maxim A.Titov <xim@bk901.exnet.msk.su>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: <none>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 18:13:30 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: InterEVM (dep. 044)
Reply-To: xim@bk901.exnet.msk.su

GROUP comp.std.mumps
ART 65
GROUP comp.theory
ART   3989


Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
From: mmaccorm@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Mike Mac Cormack)
Subject: Writing Windows Applications in Ada?
Organization: Micronav International
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:50:49 GMT

I am looking for information on programming windows applications using Ada.  
Do Verdix and Telesoft offer validated compilers for Windows?  If they do 
not, does anyone?  Are there CASE tools compatible with these compilers?  I 
was also wondering which Windows complier is the best when programming 
in Pascal and C++.  Any information would be appreciated.  

Thanks in advance,


Mike Mac Cormack
Micronav International Inc
P.O.Box 1523 / 104 Marine Drive
Sydport Industrial Park,
Sydney, N.S. Canada B1P 6R7
Tel: 902-564-8833      Fax: 902-564-8764
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: Re: Guest account at Center for Software Reuse
Organization: The World
	<1993Jan26.113442.20695@sei.cmu.edu> <1k47q5INNiii@umbc7.umbc.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:12:23 GMT


>Two questions:
>     Have you thought about calling DSRO to apply for an account?
>(Because of Export Controlled material there needs to be individual
>accountability)  [703-536-6900].
>     Because everyone else does it differently, does that make them right?
>
>Ken.

Ken,
	Your questions reflect why reuse is so screwed up in the DoD.
Reuse is a technology transfer problem.  For those of us who try to
earn a living on reuse and techtran, the key is marketing, marketing,
marketing.  I have to go out and find customers and sell, sell, sell.
They are not going to come to me, I have to go to them.  I shouldn't
be calling DSRO - DSRO should be calling me and everyone else pushing
their reusable software.  DSRO, like all of the prior funded DoD
reuse efforts, are groups of people in a business who don't want to
be in a business.  The result is the endless Santayana disasters that
always repeat the prior mistakes.

    Sure there are different ways of doing things.  The problem with
DSRO, ASSET, RAPID, etc is that they never learn from the mistakes of
previous efforts, nor do they seek out those who have succeeded with
reuse.  I know of half a dozen or so substantial reuse efforts in other
branches of the government who have never been contacted by any of the
DoD reuse efforts.  What kind of incompetence does this show?

    For example, I am always seeking out collections of reusable software
to add information on to my databases, a very active process.  Not once
has any DoD reuse effort ever contacted me to arrange to get at my
information, or my techniques for tracking all of the government's software
output on a budget of $2000 a year, or my knowledge of the locations of
thousands and thousands of defense computer programs available publicly
in source code form.  What does this say about DSRO's real interest in
reuse, as opposed to their real interest in spending whatever money they
have been budgeted?

    If DSRO has to exist as a stand alone business, with no government
support, with its current management and business practices, where users
had to pay for access to reusable software, DSRO would be bankrupt in
six months.  If DSRO showed its user interface to their components library
at any trade show or conference, they would be laughed off the stage
(and having once seen the source code to the interface, a well justified
laugh).    What this means is that contractors don't like to spend
money on reuse, and that efforts like DSRO are just another welfare
subsidy to defense contractors too long coddled with blank-check
government contracts, and a place to prepare resumes.

Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimization


-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
From: stachour@sctc.com (Paul Stachour)
Subject: Ada9x -- TC SigAda -- Jan 26, 1993
Organization: SCTC
Distribution: MN
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:24:06 GMT


			Twin Cities ACM SIGAda
			       presents
				   
		  Ada 9X, Highlights and Experiences
				   
	       Mike Kamrad, Paramax (A Unisys Company)
				   
	      Oxboro Library, 8801 Portland, Bloomingon
		 7 p.m., Tuesday, January 26th, 1993
				   

  With an effective agreement on the Ada 9X language features now
  accomplished, the first update to ADa will probably enter standardization
  proceding late this year.  Mike will speak on the latest status of Ada 9x,
  current schedules, highlights of new language features, and experience
  of 2 projects within Paramax using these features.

  Mike Kamrad has been actively involved in Ada for many years, 
  including charing the ARTERG.  Mike brings a long history of knowledge
  based on experice of an academice, techincal, and business nature.


     The  Oxboro  Library  is  located  at  8801  Portland   Avenue   in
     Bloomington.   To reach it, take the Portland Avenue exit from I494
     and drive south to 88th.  Or take the 62 East exit from I35W South,
     and then immediately the Portland Avenue exit from highway 62; then
     south to 88th.  The Library is on the east side of Portland and the
     parking lot entrance is behind the library.

     For information on this program, or on Twin Cites ACM SIGAda,
           mail to Mark.D.Glewwe@cdev.com
           or phone 612-482-7467 (Paul Stachour)



-- 
Paul Stachour          SCC, 1210 West County Rd E, Suite 100           
stachour@sctc.com          Arden Hills, MN  55112-3739
                             [1]-(612) 482-7467
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: Re: Guest account at Center for Software Reuse
Organization: The World
	<SRCTRAN.93Jan22122826@world.std.com>
	<1993Jan25.104831.8348@sei.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:43:08 GMT


John Goodenough comments on my comments about excessive SEI and CSRO secrecy:

>I can't resist mentioning that the primary benefit of this rule is to
>eliminate theft of computer equipment, of which we have a lot!  Imagine the
>(accurate) charge of "incompetence" that would be levied if we were regularly
>ripped off!  (People do enter the building and use the facilities unescorted
>once they have been vouched for by someone on the staff.)

This is still a pathetic excuse.  In my efforts to track all of the
government's resuable software (over 20,000 programs at latest count,
not that anyone really cares about the government's software) I have
visited most of the DoE, NASA, and many DoD facilities such as Argonne
National Laboratory in Chicago, Ames Research Center at Moffett Field,
Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Air Force Geophysical Library at
Hanscom field, as well as many universities such as MIT, Berkeley, UCSD,
Rice, and Department of Commerce Facilities such as NIST in Gaithersburg.
At most, all I ever have to do is sign in (name and address) to get 
pretty much free access to all of the facilities (except of obviously
secret offices or laboratories with complex equipment setups).  At all
of these places, I have access to all types of equipment, especially
much more expensive stuff than that at SEI.  So this equipment protection
excuse is very lame.

Also, in tracking all of the government's software (and building a process
to do so, again not that any of the tax wastinf reuse people care), I have
had access to a variety of computer systems at these facilities, much over
the Internet through anonymous FTP.  For all of these computer systems, my
access to their systems was restricted to the public areas they controlled,
a small price to pay to get access.  They protect what they want to protect,
they make available what they want to make available.  So the CSRO excuse
about taking their systems off line for secrecy reasons is also pathetic.

It borders on criminality all of these DoD reuse efforts that have been
unable to make use of the Internet to provide easy access to reusable Ada
software, either through a service like NETLIB, postings to alt.sources.ada,
or anonymous ftp.  It's one of the reasons (not that anyone cares) that
C and C++ are leaving Ada in the reusable dust.  There is hundreds of 
megabytes of C/C++ software floating over the Internet everyday, without
needing the millions of dollars flushed down the drain of Ada reuse efforts.


Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimization
617-489-3727   (call I can't bite you over the telephone!)
-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada