From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!agate!shelby!msi.umn.edu!sctc.com!stachour
From: stachour@sctc.com (Paul Stachour)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: compilers for Ada; Re: Legislative Mandate for Ada
Message-ID: <1990Dec18.224601.1835@sctc.com>
Date: 18 Dec 90 22:46:01 GMT
References: <2449@sparko.gwu.edu> <9700@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> <2455@sparko.gwu.edu> <9728@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> <EMERY.90Dec17153931@aries.linus.mitre.org> <9742@as0c.sei.cmu.edu>
Organization: Secure Computing Technology Corporation
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes:
>When Borland creates TurboAda or Microsoft does QuickAda, then the language
>is probably mature enough to hold its own.  Until then, it remains an
>interesting experimental language by the government.


  I have often asked myself the same question:

     Why is it that Borland or Microsoft or @@@ doesn't do a
   "Cheap" Ada compiler?

===> Climb on Soapbox

  This summer, I had an opportunity to answer that question, by
being forced to use MicroSoft C (both versions 5.1 and 6.0).  What
I discovered (as far as the MicroSoft C is concerned) is that Microsoft
doesn't have a C compiler.

  They have a compiler for some language, but it's not C.  I've taken
C programs that I've used on lots of compilers.  These programs fit
both the rules for (old-style, to me silly) K&R C, as well as the
rules for new-style, ANSII (half-way reasonable) C.  But they won't
compile and run on Microsoft C.  A variety of compiler bugs.  
Language features it wouldn't accept.  Size restrictions on a
640K PC that means C-program to equivalent size to that of
systems Implementation languages that compile on a 256K mainfrane
won't compile on a PC using MSC.

  I know several people who have validated an Ada compiler.
It's a hard job.

  It's easy to sell a C compiler; you just put something cheap
enough out, and people will buy it; I know that I did.

  But it's not easy to sell an Ada compiler; first of all it
has to compile Ada!  That is, it has to pass some independent
quality control step! What a strange idea for many software
developers!

  Of course, I like compilers (like ones for Ada) that will
accept and compile the langauge.  I don't like compilers
(like so many for C) that insist on rewriting the language
in their own philosophy.  Thus I never know what my programs
"should do".

  Of course I don't mind compilers that have both "their extensions"
for specialized needs as well as a "do it the standard way"
option.

  But then, maybe I'm a strange consumer.  On one multi-user
system with over 3000 users, I filed 30% of all the bug-reports,
finding things that didn't work right-and-left.  Most users
appear not to read the specifications, and think anything that 
the program gives or doesn't give them is right.

<=== Descend from Soapbox

...Paul
-- 
Paul Stachour         Secure Computing Technology Corp
stachour@sctc.com      1210 W. County Rd E, Suite 100           
		 	   Arden Hills, MN  55112
                             [1]-(612) 482-7467