Re: EGCS & GNAT Was (Re: GNAT versions)

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

In article <7g0qj1$1td0$1@Mercury.mcs.net>, les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> In article <1999Apr25.201259.1@eisner>,
> Larry Kilgallen <kilgallen@eisner.decus.org> wrote:

>>As an Ada fan, I would much prefer the versions of Ada available
>>(from all sources) were as defect-free as possible, so those who
>>are not already firmly in the Ada camp will not get disuaded by
>>encountering defects.
> 
> If the old versions are perfect, why is there ongoing development?

Of course some development is for new features.  A compiler that
complied perfectly with the RM could still be improved in optimization,
quality of error messages, etc.  There might be other defects going to
the absolute correctness of the compiler.  What there should never be
in a released version is DEFECTS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY FIXED.

If you maintain that those internal "wavefront" releases cannot
introduce a regression, might it be the case that ACT wastes time
by running full regression tests before a release ?  If so, then
you can dismiss all the alleged "added value" Robert spoke about
from their extensive test battery and just make your own changes
to the compiler.

In fact, if you are so upset about the way ACT behaves, you can set
up a competing GNAT development effort.  When the time comes, however,
for me to pay money to a vendor for GNAT, and I have my choice between
a vendor who tests and a vendor who doesn't, I have no question about
which way my decision would go.

Larry Kilgallen