Re: Binary versus text and compiler versions, was: Re: Will Ada-95 Programs Written in MS Windows Run in MacOS and Linux Without Some Tweaking.

[erlo <erlo@valid.not>]

On 12/11/2013 12:37 PM, Austin Obyrne wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 11:08:40 PM UTC, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2013-12-10, Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote: > > But if I was writing this sort of code, I wouldn't worry about line endings > at all, and simply encrypt the file as binary data, using Stream_IO to read > it in and out. > Thank you. That's one of a number of things I don't understand about this. A serious encryption tool is going to treat the input as a opaque stream of bytes not as text. I don't encrypt pure text, but I _do_ encrypt full directory trees which may have a mixture of text and binary files within them. I don't understand how someone who claims to have invented something new cannot realise this. And to the OP: while I can certainly understand the desire to remain with Ada 95, 
> 
> 
> <what I don't understand is why you insist on using such a specific version <from a range of long obsolete compiler versions. Can you explain your <reasoning ? Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-<Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world
> 
> Hi Simon,
> 
> The gnat 311.p compiler happens to be the one that I use to develop my cipher program source code in my three ciphers over 10 years ago.  
> 
> There is nothing binding about a compiler – if it works leave it alone unless you can benefit from the attributes of revised versions in 2013 there is no point in trying to improve on what you’ve got - each download, sale or whatever of my software comes with a gnat 311.p compiler provided ready for installing at the click of a mouse and is certain to work  – in passing this compiler loads like a treat in Windows XP, Vista, 7,& 8.  
> 
> There is nothing decadent about using an older compiler.  This compiler works even better than recent updated (revised) versions of the Ada language so there is no criticism that can be made on the back of being an older version.  There is no benefit whatever in using more recent compilers and as you can see it even leads to the trouble being discussed here.
> 
> It is not anachronistic to use an old compiler.  
> 
> •The ‘C’ language is still being used to write important components of systems and see how old that is.
> 
> Compilers in my understanding are updated solely so as to incorporate better ways of doing known criteria or of introducing totally fresh methods but if you don’t need these why change from what you’ve got?
> 
> The only downside of my scheme of disseminating my software with the same copied compiler in every case is that the compiler number is the same every time but is that an exploitable defect – No way do think so!
> 
> I hope this answers your question.
> 
> Austin
> 
Compilers has bugs too! One of the reasons to release a new version of a
compiler is to get rid of (some of) these bugs, which all users will
benefit of.

Erlo