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
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: a new language, designed for safety !
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:56:02 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lnpdt2$ggn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <lmj8s6$hhp$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <1402308235.2520.153.camel@pascal.home.net> <85ioo9yukk.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <ln6tlg$1vc$1@dont-email.me>
 <255b51cd-b23f-4413-805a-9fea3c70d8b2@googlegroups.com>
 <ln6uv9$bk8$1@dont-email.me>
 <b22db9fb-a73d-438a-8cfd-f0bb1db70eed@googlegroups.com>
 <MPElv.491358$1w1.428312@fx03.iad>
 <5ebe316d-cd84-40fb-a983-9f953f205fef@googlegroups.com>
 <ln7ngt$c8a$1@dont-email.me>
 <2100734262424129975.133931laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org>
 <lnn5ko$ner$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <665318547424646901.823673laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org>
 <lnnt1g$mka$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 12:56:02 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="e458ff8b81bc0c159989eb0e36c6e372";
	logging-data="16919"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+m7IPQFwvujbcE2DdprJt7/MeLGI8AptI="
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (VMS/Multinet)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:R5kfYkUzlTPt0jS++ATvy2MTaJ4=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:20396
Date: 2014-06-17T12:56:02+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2014-06-16, Jeffrey Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> wrote:
> On 06/16/2014 02:31 PM, Luke A. Guest wrote:
>>
>> I meant available to a general user or beginner. Also, I meant those that
>> do not use someone else's front end as I understand a lot of the Ada
>> compilers available (at extreme cost) are the same front end.
>
> Please don't spread FUD.
>
>> Therefore 1) not many available for free or less than a couple I hundred
>> quid and even that is too much for a lot of people, 2) not many independent
>> implementations.
>
> C's overriding design principle appears to have been ease of compiler 
> implementation. The result was a very badly designed language with lots of 
> implementations. Since the implementations are mostly crappy, they're free. (How 
> crappy? Before it was bought by TI, there was a company called Tartan that made 
> most of its money by selling C compilers for systems that came with a free C 
> compiler.) Comparing crappy compilers for a crappy language to decent compilers 
> for a well designed language makes no sense.
>

Don't confuse the C compiler market in the 1980s/1990s with today's
market now gcc and llvm have become established and set minimum baselines
for what is and is not acceptable quality wise.

Also, just because something is easy to implement than that doesn't mean
it has to be a bad thing. Oberon is a language which is (relatively)
easy to implment.

I think the core question here is: do you want to encourage Ada use by
more people or do you want Ada to only be used by some ever declining
elite ?

If it's the former, then you have to package Ada compilers in a way
which is relevant to those people or Ada simply will never be considered
by them.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world