Re: GNAT and GCC 3.0

[Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com>]

"Pat Rogers" <progers@classwide.com> writes:
> No, it wasn't the worst of his by any means, and there are other people who
> post much worse at any given moment, but he's usually very sarcastic and
> caustic.  Big chip on his shoulder for some reason.

That "reason" is that Robert Dewar threatened to not do business with
clients that sent me wavefront sources so that I could start a
sourceforge-like cvs repository for gnat before there even was a
sourceforge.  A very un-friendly threat for someone who touts his
admiration for open-source and free software.  That one act swore me
off of gnat and after five years, I see that nothing's changed.

Yes, gnat will be in gcc-3, but Mr. Dewar cautions that it is "highly
experimental"; which I interpret to mean that he doesn't consider it
as reliable as the gcc-2.8 based gnat.  I'm reasonable certain that
that wouldn't be the case today had Mr. Dewar really opened up gnat
five years ago and allowed a lot more eyes on his work-in-progress.

-- 
Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA  93556-1412
Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com>      Phone: (760) 499-9142
President, CEO                             Fax: (760) 499-9152
My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084  4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B