Re: Compiler Revisions Should go Out As Well as Going Up.

[Austin Obyrne <austin.obyrne@hotmail.com>]

On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 1:04:41 PM UTC, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2013-12-11, Austin Obyrne <austin.obyrne@hotmail.com> wrote: > Decoded, I am saying here that there is a tendency in my opinion to view new > compiler versions in a hierarchal sequence that tacitly suggest one should > always use the most recent compiler version. I don?t think this is right and > instead older compilers should still be kept in hand as befits the users? > needs for specific applications without any suggestion of being outdated. > Very often there is nothing to be gained except a whole load of trouble in > changing to newer compiler versions of the same language. Actually, I don't use the most recent compiler versions. However, I also don't use compiler versions from around the late 1990s. I do quite a bit of embedded work as a hobby and hence I have multiple gcc toolchain versions installed for the various embedded environments I use. About every couple of years or so, I go through a sequence of upgrading the embedded and native gcc versions so that the oldest version is dropped and a more recent version than the most recent version I was using is installed. That's not the very latest version at that time, but a version that's been out for a while and is perceived as a stable version. I also use the same compiler toolchain versions to compile code written in other languages such as C and C++ so that's also a factor as well as well as the fact the packages being compiled have their own minimum required gcc versions. Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

I must confess to being a bit blinkered in my outlook possibly because of my preoccupation with cryptography but I am trying hard also to empathise with you guys who are up front at the cutting edge of all the diverse applications to Ada.

My overview (admittedly as a layman) is that the current 'one compiler does all is' modus operandi is extravagant in many cases that do not need the update.

I use a concept of mutual databases in my cryptography which if you think about is also very prevalent in commerce, military. financial situations.

In essence then the question boils down to this? would Ada be better deployed by becoming fragmented to suit a wider scope of needs instead of one all powerful compiler that fits all cases but with considerable redundancy.  

I repeat " The custodians of the langauge will no doubt have given much thought to this" 

Given that it is still early days in IT (even half a century is quite samll compared with other sciences and technologies)there is still vast changes to come in fighting malaware infections, identity theft, information security etc.

Ada programming will see much more change still to come in my view - it is not ridiculous to suggest rationalising this change as I am suggesting here.

Austin O'Byrne