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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a1ce307c10055549 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-12-08 12:10:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.vmunix.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!teaser.fr!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Steven Deller" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: IBM Acquires Rational Ada Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 14:11:18 -0600 Organization: Smooth Sailing LLC Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1039378203 30996 137.194.161.2 (8 Dec 2002 20:10:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 20:10:03 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 In-Reply-To: <8db3d6c8.0212080918.4e0a732@posting.google.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 X-RBL-Warning: This E-mail came from 67.251.129.67, a potential spam source listed in OSDUL. X-Note: This E-mail was scanned for spam. Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk X-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:31558 Date: 2002-12-08T14:11:18-06:00 > -----Original Message----- > From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org > [mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org] On Behalf Of steve_H > Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 11:18 AM > To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org > Subject: Re: IBM Acquires Rational Ada >... > Why do you think rational Ada is important for Ada? Purer Ada implementation (no non-standard extensions). Fewer bugs (more correct programs compile). Better code generation (faster, head to head). > Those companies now need to add more value to their compilers > than just compiling the source code, and this comes in the > form of better debuggers, and such. Integrated application *system* navigation with simple point and click. Integrated CM builds for managing 100's of simultaneous developers. Integrated tools such as "find all uses of X". Integrated multi-program debugger. Integrated with Rose (build and maintain OO in UML). > The only hope for Ada getting more popular, is for gnat to be > fully integrated in the gcc system. This makes Ada available > anywhere gcc is available. This means a programmer now can > write in Ada (instead of C or C++) knowing their software can > be build just as easily. I like GNAT as much as Apex (use both all the time). But if any major development shop is to commit to a technology they (almost always) want the technology to have several sources. For all sorts of good management reasons. For gcc, most OS vendors offer support for the compiler they provide. It may be gcc, but I can guarantee you that they are NOT fully equivalent. That appears to be "multiple sources" to managers, even if underneath they all came from similar source. None of those vendors, at least yet, support gnat, or rather Ada under gcc. Getting Ada into gcc is useful, don't get me wrong, but it is NOT going to be the saviorr of Ada. Having multiple vendors makes managers much more likely to pick a technology. Finally, if a current major Ada vendor stops supporting Ada, I can guarantee you that your ability to sell Ada into any development situation will get MUCH harder (sell as in "convince to use"). It is important for the Ada market that we have multiple, viable vendors. > just my 2 cents of course. And my 2 cents. Regards, Steve