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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.236.228.202 with SMTP id f70mr8441874yhq.28.1414176445279; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:47:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.40.133 with SMTP id x5mr72323obk.15.1414176445063; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:47:25 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!k15no575335qaq.1!news-out.google.com!ks2ni1351igb.0!nntp.google.com!h18no9571132igc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 11:47:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2602:306:3784:5b10:7e:4136:bf:f847; posting-account=yiWntAoAAAC1KqC_shmxJYv07B9l6LNU NNTP-Posting-Host: 2602:306:3784:5b10:7e:4136:bf:f847 References: <1728e4b1-2885-4237-a1d9-847d5b3eee23@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <6e534f60-44c5-4cc6-aa92-f99044524abe@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Ada on openvms for alpha From: David Botton Injection-Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 18:47:25 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 2943 X-Received-Body-CRC: 3684518955 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:22709 Date: 2014-10-24T11:47:24-07:00 List-Id: > Nope -- But this illustrates one of the weaknesses of the Ada market: > If there's only a single free [and up-to-date] implementation, then if=20 > it drops support for a platform that platform is inaccessible to Ada=20 > programming. I don't know if that is accurate, as long as there is an open license on GN= AT there was no reason for anyone to not take on supporting it if there was= a demand (obvious there is no financial demand or AdaCore would continue). Just like there is no reason that GNAT can't be forked by others and worked= on. The real problem is that there isn't a known business market for Ada outsid= e a small (but 'overly' lucrative) niche and no company has invested the ma= rketing to create or find those other markets yet. For example, I don't have the interest nor am I the expert, but some one th= at wanted to a make a few dollars should be able to roll this guy an openVM= S alpha of at least an older version of GNAT that will work. I am sure he w= ould be will to pay for it. > Hopefully the situation with GNAT being the /only/ free and modern-spec= =20 > implementation will change shortly. I don't know how much it matters if GNAT is the only one, what matters is i= f AdaCore is the only one working on it and supporting it. They have been g= ood about giving back to the FSF much of their work, but let's say they pul= led the plug on that effort (which would not surprise me) just like they di= d with the license "shtick" on GNAT-GPL. I think it would be cool to have competitive open source Ada compilers, but= it is more cool if there were more people working on what exists to insure= its long term future use for the community use. David Botton