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: 103376,1ee02783c13c3480
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Pat Rogers" <progers@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Object Ada (Aonix)
Date: 1998/03/02
Message-ID: <6dedte$1ee$1@uuneo.neosoft.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 330011462
References: <34E32C78.41C6@snv.jussieu.fr> <34FA2B79.FE54764@swbell.net>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Organization: NeoSoft, Inc.  
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-03-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bob Lusk wrote in message <34FA2B79.FE54764@swbell.net>...
>My personal opinion:
>Yes there are a number of bugs in ObjectAda.  At my workplace, we tried
>using ObjectAda with limited success.  Support is slow in helping with
>problems that surface.
>
>If you have a reasonably small program, you may be successful.  If this
>is new code and not reused Ada 83 code you have a better chance.
>Debugger is flawed - You may have to debug with print statements.
>
>Have you considered either Rational or Green Hills?  Is your application
>real-time?


IMHO there is no better front end than that used by Aonix (ie the
Intermetrics front end) which if I remember correctly is the same one used
by Green Hills.  It routinely handles correct code that other compilers
cannot.  This doesn't mean that you are wrong, YMMV, just that the Aonix
product is pretty darn good all things considered, particularly -- for me --
in handling complex code.

Yes the debugger isn't really ready yet, but they are indeed working on it.

Pat Rogers
no relation to Aonix other than a user