Re: GNAT and AdaSage

[riehler@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (Richard Riehle)]

In article <1994Nov8.054936.17363@newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de> (Software Droid) writes:
>
>As for objections brought forward several months ago by Dr. Riehle, subsidzing 
   No, No, No!  I am not oppoosed to GNAT.  I support the efforts of ACT.
   I don't recall exactly how I phrased my earlier remarks regarding this
   topic, but I apparently did not make myself clear.  I am not anti-ACT.

   Both GNAT and ACT will be good for the Ada industry.  Just as AdaSage,
   another DoD funded project has been beneficial for Ada.

   My point is that I do no want to see those companies who have devoted
   many years and millions of dollars to supporting Ada driven out of the
   Ada business as a consequence of DoD-funded competition. I shall continue
   to support them if they deliver quality products, reasonably priced and
   well-supported. Where GNAT-based products are superior, there will be no
   alternative but to choose quality.

   In particular, the SGI strategy with GNAT/ACT is well-planned, and focused
   on serving a customer base with reliable products. And that strategy is
   coupled with a quality-assurance effort. On the other hand, GNAT
   "ports", being easy to accompish,  are not guaranteed to subscribe to
   same level of quality we expect from SGI.

   Therefore, when we do decide to use GNAT, it will be only after we are
   sure that an implementation has attempted to achieve the same level of
   quality we have come to expect from the current Ada 83  commerical   
   compiler vendors.

   We hope that GNAT and ACT will have the effect of driving some Ada compiler
   vendors to produce even better products as competitive prices.

   Richard Riehle