Re: Proving Correctness (was Java Portability)

["nicolas" <n.brunot@cadwin.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1329 bytes --]

"Pascal Obry" <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> a �crit dans le message news:
u4rrlur8g.fsf@wanadoo.fr...
> I agree. But at least ACT has done a job that nobody else have done
before!

Nobody else have done it, and that's the first biggest problem.
The second biggest problem is that GNAT.xx is truly great for people who
decided to be tied to Gnat compiler, and almost useless to others, unless
they are ready to loose their time to adapt it, and follow its evolution,
each one finally having its own slightly different version of the same
things, each one loosing its time making again the same job in parallel.
I don't think being tied to one compiler is a sensible decision for a
company choosing Ada.
This goes against main reasons of Ada choice, and there is no justification
for such a decision.

I don't see why this standardisation job couldn't be made with GNU.
It wouln't be very difficult to have a standard Ada library tree, with first
absolute rule that those libraries must run with main Ada compilers on main
platforms, Windows in first place.
It's up to Ada vendors to settle that, not to Ada fans to run each one in
their own direction, telling :
"I've done a great job, specific to my compiler/platform, why don't you
adapt it to your compiler/platform ?"

No need to wait for Gnat integration in GCC 3.xx for that.