Re: Taking another spanking.

[anon@anon.org (anon)]

In using a special or extra program to provide that service is great.  But to 
embed that feature into the GNAT compiler is wrong.  It is saying that Ada is 
no long a viable language.

In <96fWl.3064$z92.689@newsfe23.ams2>, Per Sandberg <per.sandberg@bredband.net> writes:
>To fill in from an GNATPro user.
>
>In the recent versions of gnatpro gcc and g++ got a new switch 
>"-fdump-ada-spec" that will generate Ada specs from a C or C++ header files.
>/Very convenient and it works like a dream when interfacing libraries 
>with interfaces specified in the languages C and C++.
>/Per
>
>sjw wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 1:43 am, a...@anon.org (anon) wrote:
>> 
>> Are you really just one person, or a collective? Sometimes you're
>> sensible, sometimes plain bananas .. this time on the sensible side. I
>> wish you'd admit to your real name!
>> 
>>> But some like you talk that Ada should NEVER go beyond the RM and use
>>> Sockets, that is just wrong. Ada like all languages must be able to adapt and
>>> handle all devices both physical as well as virtual to be compatible to be used
>>> for all applications. Else its the death by limitation of the language.
>> 
>> Nothing wrong with GNAT.Sockets, use it all the time. But see no need
>> to go the .Thin level. If I did, I wouldn't moan at AdaCore for
>> changing it.
>> 
>>> But then again, I think it was you that stated last year that if you rewrote
>>> or updated "C2Ada" you would never write the program in Ada!
>> 
>> c2ada is written in C, with some Python that I haven't had to
>> understand yet (and which seem to be related to converting C _bodies_
>> to Ada, not a sensible project or one likely to lead to success IMO).
>> 
>> So I might have said that I would rewrite it in Ada; but now, given
>> that AdaCore have announced a conversion facility, I think I'll find
>> something more worth while.