Re: logarithms on ada

[john@assen.demon.co.uk (John McCabe)]

dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:

>John McCabe said
>
>  <<I don't think the phrase "..adapt only slowly to new technologies.."
<..snip..>
>
>Absolutely, that's exactly what I mean by slow to adapt, big projects
>don't jump on new technology band wagons fast, and rightly so!

You misunderstand what I'm saying here - it's not that *projects* are
slow to adapt, it's that they don't adapt at all.

>  <<**Note - not including GNAT, but how widely used is GNAT in large
>   safety and mission critical systems?.>>
>
>I don't know why GNAT should be excluded in your mind. 

I have excluded GNAT since as far as I am aware, no other vendor
provides anywhere near as many variations (host/target) at this time.

>A significant number of mission critical projects,
>including some safety critical projects have selected GNAT as the
>Ada 95 technology of choice.

Unless you have some very mainstream requirements, I wouldn't say you
have much choice so far with Ada 95, but that's even the case with Ada
83 if you're looking at cross-compilers.

>As time goes on we will see more and
>more deployed projects using Ada 95 in general, and GNAT in
>particular.

I certainly hope so.

<..snip..>
>
>In addition, we get some indication from the fact that many thousands
>of people have picked up more than one version -- a pretty good indication
>that they are using it! 
>

Well I have a copy of GNAT 3.05 for DOS, one for Solaris and a copy of
the NT version 3.04, but I am not using them so your conclusion here
is not guaranteed.

Anyway, this has gone a bit too far off-topic. If the original poster
lets us know what version of Ada he's using then we could probably be
more helpful. It's a bit pointless giving information on how to do
things in Ada 95, if they're not supported in Ada 83 and that's the
version someone is using.


Best Regards
John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk>