Re: Towards a free GNU Ada

["James S. Rogers" <JimMaureenRogers@worldnet.att.net>]

Chris Morgan wrote:
> 
> James Rogers wrote:
> 
> [SNIP]
> > Perhaps it is time to remove some conflict from the ACT charter.
> > It seems the only way to do this is to either find a continuing
> > source of funding for development and maintenance of GNAT, or to
> > find some alternate group to perform maintenance of a public
> > version of GNAT, effectively creating a separate version from the
> > product produced by ACT.
> [SNIP]
> 
> With respect I think this is a load of nonsense!

After having a private email conversation with Robert Dewar I must
agree.

Having been the misguided soul who started this thread, I also want 
to point out how absurd my earlier statement was.

I hope I have learned a valuable netiquette lesson here.


I am not interested in seeing some watered-down version of GNAT.
I am also not interested in demanding the premature release of any
software from ACT, or any other vendor.

ACT is doing the Ada world a great service in their work to develop
and maintain GNAT.  It would be a disservice to ACT and to ourselves
to expect or demand the release of any compiler version which is not
yet ready for general public distribution.  

As we all know, software support is an expensive service.  This puts
an extra burden upon anyone trying to release high quality software
to the public, at no cost to the public.  The only way to avoid
support costs is to deliver software with very low support needs.

If some corporation or individual is willing to pay ACT for support
costs we should applaud, not jeer.  The entities paying ACT for
support of "early" releases are also paying the costs which will
speed the release of the same software (including many bug fixes in
most cases) to the general public.

Does this put the general public at a disadvantage?  Of course not.
Only someone who has gotten used to the Microsoft practice of releasing
products prematurely would even begin to assume that there was any
advantage to getting the earliest versions of any software.  It is
always safer to work with proven code than unproven code.  The ACVC
does not test all aspects of a compiler's quality or usability.
Much of that sort of testing must be done in real-world situations.
With ACT and GNAT we, the general public, are fortunate to have
a situation where we get high quality compilers at no cost while
others pay the actual development costs.

If one of us really needs newer versions of GNAT ealier, then that
person or company must assume the financial responsibility associated
with access to the newest versions.  However, do not think that you
will have exclusive access to a particular version of GNAT, or even
to a particular bug fix.  The money you pay will benefit you in by
delivering fixes to you quickly.  It will benefit the rest of us by
delivering us high quality code in due time.

Jim Rogers
Colorado Springs, Colorado
--------------------------
Team Ada