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

[mrs@kithrup.com (Mike Stump)]

In article <7gbjhg$s98$1@rtl.cygnus.com>,
Per Bothner <bothner@cygnus.com> wrote:

>However, there was at least the perception that in a few case he made
>some questionable decisions based on concerns about GNAT.  For
>example, C++ exception handling was delayed because Kenner had his
>own ideas as to how it "ought" to be done.

Here is my take...

I don't think any of this was related to GNAT.  My take is just a
simple conflict of styles.  It only delayed EH by 2-7 years.  My
choice, would have been to not delay it, and just get it working, then
working well, then well ported, then clean up the interfaces and
documentation.

I resisted doing it his way, and he resisted accepting it my way.

I don't yet understand the benefit of delaying EH, maybe in time I
might...

In retrospect, I think it might have been easier to do the entire
thing, port it to all the major platforms, work out the details, clean
it up, document it, then submit it after the fact.  What I wanted to
do, was expose the source code control system to my learning, so as to
preserve the record of what was learned.  One can do up the whole
thing first, then check it in en-mass, but what I don't like about
that, is there is no history of why.  It _feels_ less open to me.  I
think there are more benefits by having it more _open_.