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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a6b:9710:: with SMTP id z16-v6mr2959492iod.85.1535219351899; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 10:49:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:aca:d417:: with SMTP id l23-v6mr148303oig.7.1535219351767; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 10:49:11 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!news.snarked.org!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!w19-v6no1783845itb.0!news-out.google.com!c63-v6ni1845ith.0!nntp.google.com!g24-v6no1785795iti.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 10:49:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=50.66.161.135; posting-account=lzqe5AoAAADHhp_gregSufVhvwu22fBS NNTP-Posting-Host: 50.66.161.135 References: <2bd66110-61e4-45c2-b731-7387b45b1e56@googlegroups.com> <9403f091-7a72-467d-aa6e-19a61c2d1f3c@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <618a51ca-8008-40df-9229-b5c2e613ffdc@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Which old version is best to use? don't trust Adacore anymore From: Brad Moore Injection-Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 17:49:11 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:54251 Date: 2018-08-25T10:49:11-07:00 List-Id: On Friday, August 24, 2018 at 6:44:10 AM UTC-6, pat...@spellingbeewinnars.o= rg wrote: > Hi Simon >=20 > Actually I use pretty simple features and I am not experiencing bugs, I w= as just going on what has been said on this list. >=20 > This version of ctags works with Ada: > https://github.com/rtyler/ctags >=20 > So far things are going well. >=20 > The FSF is very democratic-oriented. If this is a group effort, patches w= ill probably make it past the gatekeepers if the patches are in the best in= terest of the community. >=20 > If your not surprised about the demo-ware comment, maybe you could chip i= n, your smarter than I am :) To me, the Adacore decision to not support earlier versions of the Ada stan= dard in the "Community" GPL version seems like a sensible one. The community edition encourages one to use the current standard version of= the language. If one doesn't want to use newer language features, don't us= e them, your code should still compile. There is value in at least knowing that the code is forward compatible to t= he current version of the language standard. The FSF version supports the current version as well as older versions of t= he standard. I have some libraries I maintain, with portability in mind, and maintain di= fferent versions of the code, so that the code bases for the older language= standards will compile with vendors who do not yet support later versions = of the standard, but also allowing me to try out and take advantage of newe= r language features in the newer code bases.=20 For code bases that are written for older versions of the language, I do li= ke to know that that code still compiles with newer versions of the standar= d. If I want to test forward compatibility, I might use the community editi= on to compile the code. If I want to make sure say that the Ada 95 version = of the code is not using any later versions of the standard, I compile with= the FSF compiler with the Ada 95 flag set (Or alternatively, use the FSF c= ompile with the Ada 2012 flag set). At least there is a way to get the best= of both worlds, which I very much appreciate. I recall Robert Dewar saying something to the effect, the greatest thing ab= out Ada 2012 is that it is built on Ada 2005. The greatest thing about Ada = 2005 is that it is built on Ada 95. The greatest thing about Ada 95 is that= it is built on Ada 83.=20 There are a few cases of backwards incompatibility, but for the most part a= program written in Ada 83 will still compile in Ada 2012. I recently ported a larger system of Ada code from Ada 83 to Ada 2012, from= one compiler vendor to another, from one target platform to another (diffe= rent OS, and different architecture. I was pleasantly surprised how little = effort it took to do this. (Changing OS, Vendor, language standard version,= target architecture)=20 I also recently ported a set of applications written in C++ to just a newer= version of the compiler provided by the same vendor, on the same OS (but n= ewer version), same architecture. It was very painful, and consumed a much = larger allotment of time and energy (in terms of time and mancount). (Same = OS, just newer version, Same target architecture, same compiler vendor, jus= t newer version of compiler) Your mileage may vary, of course, but my experience has been that Ada code = generally has good portablility, when compared to some other environments. I also find the FSF version of the compiler to be of good quality, and pret= ty stable. When a new version of the standard comes out, there is a time wh= en the newer introduced language features might be buggy, or not fully impl= emented, but as time goes on, these bugs tend to get addressed. It's been m= y experience that older language features work similarly well between the A= dacore GPL version, and the FSF version.=20 Brad