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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7001494ace46eea7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-09-20 02:03:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!b8630.pppool.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A.Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Overriding discriminants perplexes GNAT 3.14p Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 23:10:28 +0200 Message-ID: References: <3D88ADF6.302824D8@raytheon.com> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: b8630.pppool.de (213.7.134.48) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1032512582 5558848 213.7.134.48 (16 [77047]) User-Agent: KNode/0.4 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:29205 Date: 2002-09-20T23:10:28+02:00 List-Id: Stephen Leake wrote: > Dmitry A.Kazakov writes: > >> I wished to get GNAT Pro, but alas it is unavailable for our targed >> platform. So before investing a huge amount of bucks we are trying to >> validate existing compilers with respect of our software design. The >> result is rather disappointing. It comes to finding a language subset >> which more than one compiler are capable to digest. Looks like a typical >> C-case, isn't it? > > Why do you need more than one compiler? Hmm, perhaps developement on > the host computer, then deliver to the target. This is exactly what we are doing. To have more than one compiler is important to ensure portability across many compilers-platforms. This is one of the major requirements of our product. The target platforms we use have limited life time. They disappear after 5-7 years. So the software should be portable, and well, you never know which compiler will be used then. >> Note also the situation. We must "sell" Ada to our customers while >> they in general do not want Ada [for many reasons, but mostly >> because of ignorance]. When I talk to them I point that Ada is >> portable, available, certifyed, safe, that they will be >> vendor/platform-independent. This sometimes impresses them, because >> they have had experience with the "ever-green" C. Do I lie them? > > No language is _completely_ "portable, available, certified, safe". The language is, but its implementations? That's the problem. > Ada is _more_ of these than C. Say that instead. Do not forget, I must persuade customers which are extremely sceptical to Ada. -- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de