Re: JAVA and ADA JGNAT

[Pascal Martin <pascal.martin@iname.com.nospam>]

In article <86mqi6$6dd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Jean-Marc Bourguet <bourguet@my-deja.com> wrote:

> And how many bugs have you not struggled with because the quality
> control of ACT is better that what it is possible to do with a
> more open development?

This is the reverse, actually: GNAT is very difficult to build. IMHO GNAT
would have tremendeously benefited from an open development model,
as it would have forced GNAT developpers to fix their build process.
I used the first Gnome versions, and it was a nightmare because of
the build process: whatever program I downloaded would not work
because the third version digit of GTK did not match or because a very
obscure library was missing (no list available). Since then, they fixed it
and that makes Gnome usable & much more attracting (at least to me).

No such thing seems to happen to GNAT. I suspect ACT is protecting its
business using FUD and obscurity: "if you try to build your compiler yourself,
be warned". GNAT is complicated to build, and when you are in trouble,
Dewar put the sales hat on. And it is not cheap: the GNAT trap. Look like 
also they don't want anyone to compete with them.

There is nothing wrong with ACT doing business. But you have to realize
the not-so-open mindset: ACT is not a communauty, it is a for-profit
business. Don't idealize them. They are not the only ones: sendmail is 
moving toward this direction too.

ACT could actually work a different way, thanks to the Ada certification
process: certifying an Ada compiler version takes time and money.
Selling official Ada version seems a valid business model to me, even
if snapshot are released to the public.

If safety is your concerne (rightly !) you will, of course, only use a well 
identified and managed version of GNAT. Why in the world does that 
means that everyone else would be banned from using other versions ?

Linux version are very well identified. The odd release number strategy
is working nicely (it is simple) and the even version is both maintained
and managed. Nobody is going to use an "odd release" in a "mission
critical" application by mistake, except by stupidity, which I hope is not 
too common in the safety critical communauty.

I believe GNAT is Dewar's brainchild, and he has a parental crisis: he
do not want the kid to leave the house. Is he still reviewing all the
GNAT code that's checked in ?

------------------------------------------------------------------
Pascal F. Martin.