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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,37ed89588a753b4c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-12 07:54:51 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!sundog.tiac.net!wizard.pn.com!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!cmcl2!lab.ultra.nyu.edu!kenner
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ARPA still undermining Ada
Date: 12 Oct 1994 13:22:40 GMT
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
Message-ID: <37gnv0$j5u@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>
References: <37eq7q$t5p@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>> <TARJEIJ.94Oct12094355@ulrik.uio.no>
 <37gn4u$ljj@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lab.ultra.nyu.edu
Date: 1994-10-12T13:22:40+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <37gn4u$ljj@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>As to whether a particular piece of free software competes well technically
>with some particular piece of proprietary software, that has to be judged
>on a case by case basis. It would be a mistake to understand from Tarjei's
>comment that proprietary software is always superior in all cases to free
>software. That's just not so, there are lots of people and projects that
>choose to use free software because it is the best technical choice for the
>job (indeed there are systems, like Nextstep, where the vendor themselves
>has decided that GCC is the best available compiler, and thus it is the
>only one available).

I've long complained to the G++ folks that the lack of quality of G++
is an embarassment to the FSF and GNU project.  Please don't take this
as an example of typical FSF software.  emacs and GCC (not including
G++) are better examples.