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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8bc34e14e4555720 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-05 10:35:34 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!btnet-peer0!btnet-feed5!btnet!easynet-melon!easynet.net!newsfeed.easynews.net!newsfeed2.easynews.net!easynews.net!news.cid.net!news.enyo.de!news1.enyo.de!not-for-mail From: Florian Weimer Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: This is a simple question Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 19:56:56 +0200 Organization: Enyo's not your organization Message-ID: <874rpe0y3b.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> References: <9pk4t7$tbm$1@trog.dera.gov.uk> <87zo762rta.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <9pkc0r$m5j$1@trog.dera.gov.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13806 Date: 2001-10-05T19:56:56+02:00 List-Id: "Stephen Cole" writes: > My real question is whether this is indeed the case, and that if you don't > use packages you will always have this situation. Is this the case with all > Ada compilers? No, other compilers use a source repository, but I doubt this is more efficient than the GNAT approach. Nowadays, file systems have no problems in dealing with a large number of small files anyway. > I come from a background of 'C' and am used to the #include<> > nature of things. The idea of packages seems to adstract the native file > system to another level (packages) and allows the compiler implementation to > determine where files are on the host computer. Is this so? No, the Ada language is not concerned with the mapping of compilation units to actual source code files. Packages are about more than just separate compilation, they structure the source code, control visibility, are used in OO and generic programming, and for probably a few other things. > As for question 2. from reading this newsgroup I get the impression that > there are quite a few "bugs" in gnat?! GNAT does have some defects, but most of them relatively minor or resulting from problems of the OS environment (for example, tasking problems on GNU/Linux). I don't have any experience with other Ada compilers, but the number of bugs is certainly comparable to the number of bugs in the GNU C toolchain. (I still have to hunt down a nasty code generation bug in the GCC 2.95 C compiler...) > Or is it user problems? Not in your case, but of course, some people tend to blame the compiler although it correctly implements the Ada language. > I know gnat is freeware so maybe this is natural. GNAT is not "freeware", it is Free Software released under the GPL. (Proprietary software you get for free is usually called "freeware".) > Is this the case with more proven/certified compiler systems? Compilers with more bugs than the current GNAT version have been officially validated. ;-)