Re: GNAT, OS/2, Libraries

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

In article <4kgf38$qaa@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
        morphis@fnalv1.fnal.gov writes:
>    Hi,
>       I occasionally lurk here and one of the comments I have read
>    about GNAT in general and GNAT for OS/2 in particular is that there
>    is a lack of libraries.  Excuse my ignorance but what does that mean?
>       Are we talking about something basic to the language? or about
>    libraries of routines that will find the roots of Bessel functions,
>    draw squares or create x-widgets?
>        While these last are presumably of importance getting wide
>    acceptance, for me personally (not being a professional programmer
>    or anything close) their lack is something I can easily live with.
>       Thanks for any light you can shed on this.

First off, GNAT for OS/2 comes with a pretty decent set of libraries
to begin with. Or at the very least, a large set. Second, as long as
you're talking 'safe' code the stuff is portable. I've picked up a
couple of packages, chopped them, and compiled them with no problems
at all. As a matter of fact, the only problems I've had were with
some PM bindings that compiled under GNAT 2.04, but had some scoping
problems under GNAT 3.01 that were readily fixed. I guess it depends
on whether or not Luke and the Source are present.

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)