Re: Renaming GNAT? (was Re: Ada to C convertor)

[tor@spacetec.no (Tor Arntsen)]

In article <dewar.824161921@schonberg>,
	dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>GNU Ada is potentially confusing, because GNU C is the name of a language
>(it is the extended C language compiled by gcc), and there is definitely
>no distinct GNU dialect of Ada.

I don't agree with this.  Most of us thinks of, and speaks of, GNU C as
a very good ANSI C compiler.  We do know that it has some extensions here
and there, but that doesn't make us think that 'GNU C' is the compiler
for the 'GNU C language'.  Absolutely not, in my opinion.

>It's OK to use GNU Ada informally, but you should be aware of this
>possible confusion. The GNU C phiolosophy is that it is fine to extend
>C with useful stuff. This is NOT a part of the gcc philosophy that
>GNAT copies.
>
>Anyway, as I noted earlier, GNAT is FAR too embedded at this stage for
>us to thing of changing it (and we like the name!)

I don't agree with this either, actually.  It may look like that for you, but 
you have lived within GNAT for a long time.  The rest of the world have no 
idea of what GNAT is, and how could they ever guess it's an Ada compiler?
Call it GNU Ada and they will know..

Regards,
-- 
Tor Arntsen (tor@spacetec.no)                    Standard disclaimers apply.