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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1bad2c41a59ed9b8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: pontius@twonky.btv.ibm.com (Dale Pontius)
Subject: Re: GNAT, OS/2, Libraries
Date: 1996/04/10
Message-ID: <4kgnu1$p9e@mdnews.btv.ibm.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 146754994
references: <4kgf38$qaa@fnnews.fnal.gov>
organization: IBM Microelectronics Division
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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)