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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,608e018aa2dff3f7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Dave Wood <dpw@thomsoft.com>
Subject: Re: GNAT vs other compilers
Date: 1996/08/07
Message-ID: <3209156A.D75@thomsoft.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 172850522
sender: news@thomsoft.com (USENET News Admin @flash)
x-nntp-posting-host: wood2
references: <4u7q2j$2d9@midgard.calvacom.fr>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Thomson Software Products
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I)
Date: 1996-08-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Patrice Saintonge wrote:
> 
> Hello !
> 
> I'm currently trying to convince my boss that GNU tools are worth being
> used, compared to other often expensive proprietary tools.

I'm all in favor of GNAT - in spreading Ada 95, it provides a
good service for the community.  But, I wouldn't be too hasty
to assume that all the Ada products from the commercial vendors
are expensive.  In fact, you might find them quite cost 
effective, particularly when issues like environment, speed,
support, and services are factored into the equation.

It is my opinion that strong, competitve commercial vendors
and usable freeware are both crucial ingredients to a vibrant
Ada community.  They serve different but complementary 
purposes.

> This is why i'm looking for comparative evaluations of the GNAT
> compiler vs the other compilers in the hood.

We're pretty comfortable with this, but you might find
substantive comparative evals hard to come by for at least
several more months.  What you're more likely to get now
are anecdotal accounts.

-- Dave Wood
-- Product Manager, ObjectAda for Windows
-- http://www.thomsoft.com