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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c94bca798e1a37c3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: scot_gould@
Subject: Re: Ada and OS/2
Date: 1996/02/27
Message-ID: <4gu487$ar2@jaws.cs.hmc.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 141311243
references: <4ge8c0$fo0@jaws.cs.hmc.edu> <dewar.824940521@schonberg>
 <4glqd3$r52@jaws.cs.hmc.edu> <dewar.825209960@schonberg>
organization: Keck Science Center/Claremont Colleges
reply-to: scot_gould@krupp.claremont.edu
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-02-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In <dewar.825209960@schonberg>, dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>One thing that would be interesting is to know exactly what you are looking
>for in an OS/2 Ada compiler. In what respect does GNAT not meet your
>requirements?

Good point. GNAT is slow, bloated and lacks an integrated interface.  For most
of my projects, development is 99% of the time allocated, execution is only 1%, hence
a development system with a good interface is worth far more than a compiler
that produces fast code.