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,e29c511c2b08561c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) Subject: Re: Is the "Ada mandate" being reconsidered? Date: 1996/06/12 Message-ID: <4pnd5c$6j7@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 159875715 references: <4mq7mg$8hs@jake.probe.net> <4peu0v$rfq@news15.erols.com> <1996Jun10.114827.26046@relay.nswc.navy.mil> <4pk5sm$i7k@gde.GDEsystems.COM> <4pn0rs$mbe@gde.GDEsystems.COM> organization: Comp Sci, University of Melbourne newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-06-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Tom Robinson writes: >[someone writes]: >>Thomson's ObjectAda compiler is dirt cheap for personal >>use and the professional version is cheaper than a "professional" C++ >>package. Also, Gnat is on all sorts of platforms. > >Is it really? When I look at the Ada 95 validated compiler list it >looks pretty small to me. So you're saying that gnat is available as >long as I am willing to pay for a validation and arrange for maintenence >or do it myself. If the competition is C++ compilers, then I don't see what validation has to do with it. I mean it's not as if you are going to find any validated C++ compilers. -- Fergus Henderson | "I have always known that the pursuit WWW: | of excellence is a lethal habit" PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.