GNAT-VMS and OS version support

[kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)]

(list of newsgroups cut for this narrower derived topic)

In article <dewar.849989159@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> Larry says
> 
> "I note with interest that the ACT GNAT web pages indicate the
>  forthcoming Alpha (only) VMS port requires VMS V7.0.  Although
>  I use it as a developer, I have never heard of anyone using VMS
>  V7.0 (yet) in production.  I know a large C-shop using VMS V5.4A
>  on a cluster of 9 VAX systems for development."
> 
>   There are two separate issues here which are a little mixed up. First,
>   is there really a market for a VMS port for VAX.

Sorry, I did not mean to raise any discussion of GNAT on VAX (although
I was interested in your response).  I merely indicated that a shop was
at V5.4A to show how far back some will stabilize, as that was well
before there even _was_ an Alpha.  The same shop has at least some
machines at Alpha VMS V1.5, which is quite backward.

The reason I care about what version others may run is that it is
hard to sell them software which will not run on their machine.
The good thing about the GNAT approach is that in theory I could
make a version which could build programs compatible with earlier
versions of VMS.  The bad thing is that I prefer to avoid being a
toolmaker unless the issue is forced.  Luckily DEC Ada 83 exists
so I have the option of avoiding Ada 95 features in programs for VMS.

>   There are two separate issues here which are a little mixed up. First,
>   is there really a market for a VMS port for VAX. It would not take much
>   of a market to make it worth our while, but it is not clear that even
>   this small market exists. So far, of the possibly VAX interested
>   customers, none has been sure of whether they would be interested.

It may have been obvious to everyone else, but I was surprised to learn
at TRI-Ada that ACT will not sell support contracts in single-seat sizes.
I understand the business reasoning, and it removes a potential expense
for me, but it does narrow the field of potential supporters for GNAT-VAX
just when used VAXen are becoming quite affordable due to being replaced
by Alpha.  (I believe the presence of a GNAT-LINUX variant admits to the
possibility that someone might pay money for compiler support even though
they scrimped on initial purchase of the underlying infrastructure.)

>   It would certainly be possible to generate a limited capability 6.3
>   release if there are interested customers. As always we find we are
>   more interested in messages that say "if you had x, we would use it",
>   or "we need x, please do it", than the style of messages which say
>   "I am sure that if you did x (which I would like to have free), I
>   am sure others would buy it" :-)

And again, the no-single-seats policy limits participation at that
level, although the potential Alpha market for GNAT is not buoyed
by a plethora of used machines as with VAX.

> P.S. we are planning an Alpha/NT release of GNAT, but so far we do not
> have firm plans for PowerPC/NT, since we have had no customer interest
> in that port.

OK, just to register one comment, from my perspective support for 3.51
as at least a target is critical in any NT development tool, but again
that is from a single-seat prospect, and the ACT folk told me three
seats on separate operating systems does not count :-(.

Larry Kilgallen