Re: Ada Dot Net ?

["Eric G. Miller" <egm2@jps-nospam.net>]

In <uofh26k1h.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>, Stephen Leake wrote:

> "Eric G. Miller" <egm2@jps-nospam.net> writes:
> 
>> It's pretty clear from the gcc website that one shouldn't get there hopes
>> up too high about the quality of the Ada compiler that will ship with 3.1.
>> It's clearly not their highest priority (fixing their C++ ABI, again, seems
>> to be).  If I had to guess an order of importance, it'd be C, C++, Fortran,
>> Java, Objective C, Ada, Chill (maybe dead).  Might swap Java/Fortran...
> 
> "Importance of integrating" does _not_ equate with "quality"! gcc Ada
> is a _very_ high quality compiler.

Well, then maybe the website needs to be fixed.  As I read it, the implication
is that the GCC community is willing to accept a higher number of defects
and/or suboptimal code generation compared with C or C++.  If they really
mean the depth of integration with the rest of the compiler, the website
should say so.  Anyway, good to hear the compiler works well -- supposed
to be released in a couple of weeks, no?

> The GNAT compiler has an extensive test suite. It's mostly
> proprietary, consisting of ACT customer code sent in over the years as
> bug reports. So it doesn't show up in the gcc tree. But the gcc tree
> code is run against the test suite by ACT.

Will some kind of results be published with the release?

>> One could hope that direct inclusion of Ada will increase interest
>> in Ada in the user community which will therefore spurn interest in
> 
> Perhaps you meant "spur", not "spurn"? One of those nasty little
> single-letter typos :).

Yes, "generate" interest not "reject".

>> the gcc community.
>