Re: Perception of WoTUG and occam and transputers

["Beton, Richard" <richard.beton@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Tony Gore wrote:

> This is a difficult one. However, I like the name "Communicating Process
> Architecture Society".
>
> I think that a transition is needed, but have a suggestion as to how to
> keep the WoTUG "brand"
>
> Call it "Communicating Process Architecture Society incorporating WoTUG"
> for a transition period of a couple of years or so, and then eventually
> the "incorporating WoTUG" can be dropped. This is what some companies
> and learned societies do when abosrbing or merging.
>  

FYI:
   cpasoc.org is not registered
   cpa-soc.org is not registered

I would support Tony's suggestion. I would also favour the stated aim of 
demonstrating that the concepts and principles we espouse are language 
and hardware agnostic. I am (mildly) in favour of a change of name.

My colleague has just returned from an Ada conference - yes they're 
still doing Ada (and yes, we're still doing occam). Which reminds me 
that the strengths of Ada are occam's weaknesses (the type and package 
systems) and the weaknesses of Ada (and many languages) are occam's 
strengths, namely the rigourous mathematical foundation and the 
communication process architecture.

In an ideal world, I'd would have designed a hybrid best of breed in 
about 1985 and the world would be happily using it for embedded systems 
to this day. I dream. :-)

Rick


PS please could the mailing list administrator set the reply-to field 
for this list.






--
Registered Office: Roke Manor Research Ltd, Siemens House, Oldbury, Bracknell,
Berkshire. RG12 8FZ

The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential to
Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be passed to any third party without
permission. This communication is for information only and shall not create or
change any contractual relationship.