Re: GNAT function calling overhead

[dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)]

>At the most abstract level, it's because GNAT is a failed government
>project which was never finished and was mismanaged from the start by a
>bunch of flaky educators posing as "capable professionals".

  Maybe things are different in other government projects, and they all
  get finished before the expected termination date ??

  Anyway, to get things absolutely clear on this. The GNAT project is
  indeed not finished. The project terminates on June 31st, 1995, and
  by that time, we will indeed be finished, in the sense of having
  completed the full implementation of Ada 95, including all the
  annexes.

  It's right to be suspicious of anything coming out of academic
  environments. I am myself one of the most sceptical people when
  it comes to software coming out of universities. So I understand
  this concern. The best advice is to pay no attention to what I
  or CJIII say on this, but instead take a close look at GNAT itself!

>At the most detailed level, it's because GNAT emits poorly optimized, and
>hence very evil, C code.

  This can't be based on looking at the alledged "very evil" C code. How
  do I know this? Because in no sense does GNAT emit C code AT ALL. It
  is a true compiler, not a translator to C. Both the C and GNAT front
  ends for GCC emit a common intermediate language (RTL) that is optimized
  by the backend of GCC. So this remark is nothing but fantasy.

>And what makes anyone think that ACT will change anything with regard to
>GNAT support, documentation or enhancements.  The ACT principals have
>already demonstrated that they failed with GNAT, by even starting ACT.
>In other words, if GNAT were such a smashing success and quality product,
>then there would be no need for ACT.

  Here I think that Colin James misunderstands what ACT is about. The idea
  that quality compilers need no support might make some sense in an ideal
  world, but in practice I know of no major project that would use a
  compiler for *any* language without having guaranteed support. After all
  we expect warranties on any products we buy, no matter how excellent.

  Actually if GNAT is such a dismal failure, *then* there is definitely
  no need for commercial support. No one is going to use a junk compiler,
  even if support is available (you do not buy products that are rated
  as terrible by Consumer Reports just because they have guarantees!)
  If people sign up for support for GNAT, then it is because they think
  it meets their needs.

By the way, this is a good time to reemphasize that GNAT will continue
to be freely available, and continue to be maintained after the official
government contract is completed. All improvements and maintenance
fixes will continue to be available free via anonymous FTP, on CD-ROM's
etc. This is one of the advantages of the free software mode of operation.