 It's definitely been a while since the last issue video, but it's been quite a while since the last issue with the AIDA community video. But I said there were others, and I promised I would do more, and I think it's time. The AIDA standard. This has to do with the community, I promise. The AIDA standard is a major selling point behind why people should use AIDA. It's standardized language. You can use the same code across compilers, and it just works. As long as you stick to AIDA 83, whatever the fuck the 80 version was, that was before I was even born. Or AIDA 95. No 2005 and no 2012 processors, as the AIDA auth calls them, are conforming. I mean, they might be, but nobody bothered to validate that they are conforming. So they're not standards compliant. Oh shit. That's kind of a problem, guys. You should probably stop using that standards conformance as a selling point, and should probably stop bashing other languages for not doing that. Or even better yet, stop bashing the languages for having fake standards when they're actually validated against the standard still, because it is not, and it can't really get more fake than that. In fact, this is a level of fake that if you were to bring that up in a sales pitch, would get you in trouble, at least in the US. Probably in Canada, too, because the laws tend to be similar there, I don't want to comment on Europe. I have no fucking clue about those things, but my general understanding of their consumer protections attitude, it probably would be over there, too. And when you consider that certain processors, as it calls it, aren't actually capable of compiling the ACATs, it looks even worse. See, the ACATs, the EDIC conformacy assessment test suite, that's not exactly an acronym I have memorized, but it's something like that. It's the test for validating that a processor is conforming to the EDIC standard. Basically, if you have a compiler or anything that processes EDIC sources and want to say it is actually standards compliant, it needs to pass that. If you can't even compile it, how the fuck are you supposed to pass it? What I'm talking about there is NAT. See, NAT has a hard requirement that the package spec and package body be in separate files, that each compilation unit be in its own file. That's not part of the ADIC standard. And it's fine to implement that if it was an implementation allowance, but considering the ACATs has multiple of these compilation units inside the same file, your processor should be able to read, to process that. Now the ACATs does do something that is sensible in this regards, where the package spec and package body that are in the same file are for the same unit. That makes sense, that is a sensible file organization. I will say personally, I do agree with NAT's approach a little bit more, that separating those fully makes sense, but I see where the ACATs is doing, where it does make sense to not duplicate the files, to have them all there. Both things are valid. You should be able to separate them, and the ACATs doesn't have any reason why you can't separate them, but I can see why it's a good idea to process them together in the same file. I'm not sure how ADICOR got them passing before. I'm not sure if there's a special build flag that's not documented that enables that to work. I'm not sure if they used one of their tools to separate things out into different files so that it could work. I know the ACATs uses some very unique file extensions that are not what is normally used at all. You have to be able to process that too. NAT runs into problems on that part as well, because of course it does. I'll get this out of the way now. I can't comment on Janus or Object Ida or anything else that still exists, because I don't use them really. It's my understanding that Janus has done a fine job with the ACATs, and Object Ida, but definitely the 95 compatibility is there. I don't use them. I don't know what pitfalls they have with it, anything like that. I'm just speaking about NAT here, but considering most of the Ida community uses NAT, that's where I'm coming from. It's mind-blowing to me that they didn't check this. You just go to Ida Auth and look at the list of conforming processors, and there's nothing from past 95. In fact, there's even a statement on the website that there's no registered conforming processors for 2005 and 2012. If I can remember, I'll add that in, but it says right there that they're not conforming. You really can't say that these are standards compliant. You can't say that there's a standard that ensures that code written for NAT will work on Object Ida or on Janus, but they keep bringing that up, and there are hostile about it. It's just ridiculous because it shows how little they know.