Re: More reliable compilers (of some programming langauges) than GNAT

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

I said:
...
> Perhaps it isn't obvious to a non-native English speaker, but "quality 
> free compiler" reads as "a compiler free of any quality" (or "a compiler 
> without any quality"). As Christoph joked, it isn't the least bit hard to 
> find any such compiler (although I would argue that that doesn't apply to 
> any Ada compilers, you'd probably have to look at C or some other language 
> for such a compiler :-).

BTW, one reason for this is that there is a freely available independent 
test suite for Ada (the ACATS), so it is highly unlikely to see an Ada 
compiler that can't process some basic construct. So far as I'm aware, all 
Ada vendors use the ACATS as part of their standard QA, so basic bugs do not 
get into circulation. Most other languages do not have such a test suite, so 
both the commonality and the correctness of implementations is much more 
dependent on the vendor.

                                            Randy.