Re: Ada for OS/2 (was Re: Linux faster than OS/2...)

[system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu]

dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

>Robert said

><<I would not necessily expect OS/2's compiler to have the same effeciency
>as Linux's.  Assuming the hardware is identical the other question I have
>(not having read the original post) is whether you were running a GUI on
>Linux?>>

>  We find some things compile faster in OS/2, and others compile faster
>  in Linux. Be careful that memory and disk support are similar. One
>  factor that hurts OS/2 noticebly is the pathetic limit of 2 megs on
>  the HPFS cache size. 

<heh> Gee, where have I heard that complaint before?

><<This does bring up another question, GNAT provides a free ADA compilier
>for OS/2 (among other OSes).   I am given to believe that it was
>originally written with gov't funding but currently is only upgraded
>because one of the primary programmers likes OS/2.>>
>
>  GNAT is free software in the GNU sense, it is a front end for the
>  GCC compiler, which has been adapted to handle Ada 95. The port is
>  maintained by Ada Core Technologies, and it is maintained because
>  we have commercial customers who provide sufficient support to make
>  this continued maintenance supportable for us. 

Ah, my mistake :(

>  It is also true that one of the primary programmers likes OS/2 (me!)

thought so, but didn't care to put my foot in my mouth any more than
necessary.

>  Well our maintenance contracts are based on the total number of
>  programmers using Ada, so this model is not applicable. 

I had assumed that something would have to be worked out, but
thankfully we don't have to worry about it.

>  The cost of maintaining the OS/2 port is very much higher
>  than [$5000/year]

Interesting.

Thanks for the reply,

Robert
Morphis@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers