Re: GNAT 3.03 for OS/2

[pontius@twonky.btv.ibm.com (Dale Pontius)]

In article <4j8t6p$ae2@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, tojst1+@pitt.edu (Tore Joergensen) writes:
>
> I am happy for the free compiler I get. I would not be suprised if the number
> of paying customers are below ten (I wouldn't even be suprised if it is zero).
> It is quite obvious that the OS/2 port require more fiddling than Unix ports
> (even emx can't change that).
>
Up until now, I've been quite happy, too. I've had a little off-line
discussion with Bob Dewar on this, and the picture is not quite what
we had thought. Without his OK, I won't release the number of paying
OS/2 users of GNAT, but suffice it to say that GNAT gets OS/2 ports
largely out of Mr. Dewar's own personal interest. This is not meant
to accuse him of 'being fickle', or anything else, but circumstances
do change, and his personal interest may not be sufficient to keep
OS/2 revisions of GNAT coming in the long term.

Therefore, if folks are really interested in OS/2 GNAT, we should get
either Paying Customers, or someone willing to assist with the OS/2
porting effort. Some of the GNAT ports are currently maintained by
volunteers, so there is precedent for this.

As for myself, I've found no problems so far with GNAT. All of my
problems have been learning the language with Lovelace, examples,
and an old pre-95 copy of Grady Booch. Still, at the appropriate
time, I plan to look into becoming a Paying Customer, if possible.

Also, Three Cheers to Mr. Dewar for keeping us running so far!

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)