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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2e91a32061bde112 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Pascal Martin Subject: Re: JAVA and ADA JGNAT Date: 2000/01/26 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 577915519 References: <862sv5$sug$1@pirates.Armstrong.EDU> <862t3o$9aa1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <86k8r6$alp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86kpbu$aik1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <86la8r$519$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <877lgxuquu.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org> <86mqi6$6dd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@mediaone.net X-Trace: cmnws01.we.mediaone.net 948907063 24.130.45.139 (Wed, 26 Jan 2000 09:17:43 PST) Organization: MediaOne-Road Runner, Western Region NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 09:17:43 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-01-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <86mqi6$6dd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Jean-Marc Bourguet 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.