Re: Overriding discriminants perplexes GNAT 3.14p

[Dmitry A.Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> Dmitry A.Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> : My point was simple, a wider use gives a better product. The
> : bugs I saw in GNAT would be detected earlier if more software were
> : written in Ada and compiled with GNAT, just a statistical observation.
> 
> Maybe. But only if a higher number of program writers uses a
> higher number of all kinds of language features in different
> program contexts.

A wider use assumes that. Bugs in the implementation of protected objects 
indicate that nobody ever used them so that these bugs would become 
evident. One might argue this probably proves that protected objects are 
useless, but I think it is rather because of a very narrow application area 
of GNAT.

> As a test for the statistical observation,
> are the popular compilers for other languages better by the
> factor of OtherLanguageProgramAuthors / Ada_Program_Authors?

Such comparison might be illegal for many reasons. Of course a wide use 
does not imply a higher quality, somebody should remove that bugs in the 
end, but it is a requirement of that. What if I'd say that ACT should have 
more money to make GNAT better? Then you could pin me down with an argument 
that MS has lot of money and yet ships awful products!

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de