Re: Ada Dot Net ?

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

In <usn6c62up.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov>, Stephen Leake wrote:

> "Eric G. Miller" <egm2@jps-nospam.net> writes:
> 
>> 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. 
> 
> Can you provide the url for this website? The closest thing I could
> find to your discussion is
> http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc-3.1/criteria.html, which defines
> the release criteria for gcc 3.1. Quite sensibly, they are simply
> stating that gcc 3.1 will support Ada, but they are not willing to
> hold up the release for Ada quality issues. That just means they are
> going slow with a new thing. In this case, it happens to be someone
> else's job to ensure Ada quality!

You've got it.
 
It states GCC version 3.1 will support Ada, but that quality
issues will not hold up the release.  How different is that from what
I originally wrote?  If it sounded like I was implying the quality
wouldn't be good, that wasn't my intention.  All that I meant was,
the 3.1 Ada compiler might not be where people would like it when the
release occurs.  I'm no muckraker ;-)

>> 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++. 
> 
> "Willing to accept" and "actually present" are two different things. I
> have no problem with the gcc steering committee not accepting
> responsibility for Gnu Ada quality; ACT is doing a perfectly good job.

Well, I was unaware that ACT was taking a lead role in the development.
Last I had read was they had submitted code, but the impression I had
was that ACT intended the GCC community at large would further the
development of what was supplied.

>> 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?
> 
> I'm not clear precisely which compiler you are talking about here. The
> Ada compilers released by ACT work well; I have not tried gcc 3.x yet.

We've been talking about GCC 3.1, no?  I got the impression from your
previous post that you had some experience with CVS snapshots, otherwise
how do you make an assertion that the quality is very good?

Anyway, not much point in dragging this discussion on.  When it's
released, we'll see where it's at.