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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.36.228.76 with SMTP id o73mr4466084ith.32.1511379844057; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:44:04 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.157.42.99 with SMTP id t90mr933174ota.5.1511379843942; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:44:03 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.kjsl.com!usenet.stanford.edu!i6no3861934itb.0!news-out.google.com!193ni7065iti.0!nntp.google.com!i6no3861928itb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:44:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a02:1206:45c6:8b20:684f:dd2c:c0cc:81a5; posting-account=gRqrnQkAAAAC_02ynnhqGk1VRQlve6ZG NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:1206:45c6:8b20:684f:dd2c:c0cc:81a5 References: User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Whatever happened to GNAT GPL's JVM and .NET targets? From: gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com Injection-Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 19:44:04 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: feeder.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:49067 Date: 2017-11-22T11:44:03-08:00 List-Id: > It would be nice to be able to target GNAT to these platforms once again. What would be your motivation (just curious). Coincidence, I've just reinstalled GNAT for .NET today to be able to reprod= uce a nasty bug of the 2013-2014 edition (a really trivial reproducer progr= am could freeze a Windows PC efficiently), but with the .NET platform versi= on change (I guess), the program did not even want to start. That's the pro= blem with .NET: you need to keep up with Windows and .NET versions separate= ly, and with what in exchange, except a loss of performance ? From a market= ing point of view, it made sense 15 years ago for Microsoft, being able to = sell "their" virtual machine.