Re: ADA for OS/2

[spamtrap.dwnoon@spamtrap.ntlworld.com (David W. Noon)]

On Sun, 5 Jul 3901 21:57:20, John Poltorak <jp@eyup.org> wrote:

[snip]
> It really does seem unfair... If you use NT everything is on a plate. You
> just download a binary archive and you can be happily using GNAT 3.13p
> within a few minutes without requiring any knowledge of building
> compilers.

It is only right that software suppliers should have a lower 
expectation of the skills of Windows users: they have usually had the 
OS foisted on them when they are first "trying the water" in 
computing.

> If you use OS/2, the same task is going to take several weeks
> or months.

Not necessarily.

> I don't know anyone who has been successful building OS/2
> binaries, which  kind of begs the question who is the OS/2 patch designed
> for?

People like me, who have been programming for donkey's years and 
programming OS/2 for quite a few years within that period.

> I note the OS/2 patch is 8000 lines long which is twice as long as
> all the other patches put together, and I think if someone is going to the
> trouble of providing such complicated patches, their work will not be very
> well appreciated if no one can make any use of it. Maybe providing a
> simple build script is all that is necessary to make it work...

The term "build script" will cause many developers to shudder. The 
usual term is "makefile", but the exact nature of this is determined 
by the make utility one uses. I use DMAKE 4.0 for OS/2, and when I get
around to building GNAT that will be the maker I use, even if I have 
to coerce the makefile a bit. Even so, a makefile is not necessarily 
useful to an end-user; but if that end-user fancies himself as a 
programmer it *should* be enough.

Anyhow, watch the OS2PROG echo on Fidonet and see what turns up. I 
might also post an announcement here. The initial d/l site will be 
Pete Norloff's BBS, later Hobbes and Leo.

Regards

Dave

[Remove spamtraps to reply by e-mail]