Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?)

[Samuel Mize <smize@imagin.net>]

In comp.lang.ada Russell Senior <seniorr@teleport.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the review.  I am not accusing anyone of anything.  I am
> asking a question.  Of the three replies to my question that I saw
> this morning, none of them addressed the question.

That's because there are some people who take an angry stance about
this and ride it into the dirt.  (I mean, agree with them or not,
but they go on and on and on...)  So people here are a little
twitchy.  I'm glad this isn't your intent.

> It has been noted that ...
> recipients of the `non-public' [GNAT] releases tend not to share
> them with others, despite their legal right to do so.  I am curious to
> know what goes into their calculus for deciding not to.  That is all.

There are two kind of non-public releases, "wavefronts" and
"commercial releases."

A wavefront is an in-development copy that may not be fully tested,
hasn't been regression tested, hasn't been through QA, and may be
quite unstable.  It's given to a customer who badly needs a new
capability, or perhaps the fix to a specific bug.

A commercial release is a formally released product that ACT has
stabilized, put through regression test, beta test and QA, and
generally believes is ready to be released as a commercial product.

ACT doesn't want wavefronts passed around widely, because they're a
snapshot from the middle of development, and they expect it to have
problems.  They don't want to be flooded with bug reports on code that
they weren't done with in the first place.

ACT's customers go along because they understand and accept ACT's
rationale.  They may also want to encourage ACT to give them other
wavefronts later.  Bear in mind, ACT has no obligation to do so.  They
are only obliged to release code when its binary is delivered to a
customer; and even then, IIRC, only to that customer.

ACT's customers seldom bother to distribute the commercial version,
because ACT will publish it soon as a public version anyway.  One
might be able to beg a copy from a buddy who's a supported customer
if, for instance, one were having trouble with a compiler bug that is
fixed in that release.  Nothing wrong with that.

Once the commercial version is fully stable, ACT cuts a new copy of
that release, which is the "public" version.  The only change from the
commercial version is the version number.  This will lag the
commercial version.  This is partly because this is non-paying work,
and partly so that any bugs which are found by early adopters can be
fixed for the public version.  (Again, to avoid a flood of redundant
bug reports when the thundering horde of free users gets hold of the
product.)

So, where's the conflict coming from?

Some people would like to see wavefronts issued publicly and
periodically -- even frequently.  I believe some want to feel they
have the very "cutting edge technology" compiler, some may have wanted
a more-recent version in the hope that a specific bug was fixed, and
some just want to look into the development process.  These people are
not in a position to get wavefronts from ACT under ACT's current
policies, and they get frustrated and vocal about it.

I feel that there are fair arguments on both sides.  I'm biased toward
the ACT position in this specific case, and that's probably clear from
my writing.  GNAT is large and complex, and it's unlikely IMHO that
adding a few thousand more cooks will improve the broth.

On the other hand, I certainly understand the frustration of people
who would like to be more involved in its evolution.  I hope they get
together, set up some kind of outside-ACT development tree, and
coordinate with ACT.  One of the goals of GNAT was to encourage
experimentation with new ideas and extensions to Ada, and I feel this
would encourage work in that area.

But on the other other hand, this isn't ACT's job.  People who want to
have a parallel-and-coordinated development effort must set it up on
their own.  IMHO.

I hope you've found this helpful.

Best,
Sam Mize

-- 
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada
Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam