Re: Ada Successor Language

["G.B." <bauhaus@notmyhomepage.invalid>]

On 04.06.18 21:37, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 2018-06-04 18:54, G. B. wrote:
> 
>> I don‘t know a good reason for free software to depend on layers of Unix
>> “ported” to Unix! Isn’t it a better idea to clean out dated non-portable non-POSIX
>> dependences?
> 
> [ Well, having no POSIX is a great advantage ]
> 
> It looks that Mac OS X is no position to have a say in anything. 

Actually, Apple's devices have inspired AdaCore customers to want
a way of translating Ada to whatever runs on iOS. It's done via C,
currently, IIUC. Since much of iOS inherits the C-tradition, and since
AdaCore had already put efforts into that kind of translation,
that's a reasonable choice.


>> Even performance wise, and addressing architecture, if GNAT can benefit
>> from features of the Darwin OS, why put a hindrance of several layers of C
>> libraries in between?
> 
> Because there is nothing else?

Why layers of Unix on Unix?

If Unix needs to be between Ada and the OS for GNAT to work,
then why not just use the BSD Unix that Macs have got?

It seems as though programmers like putting much effort into making
their programs work with autoconf and xyz-ports.
This takes away much time that could be spent on making programs just
work on the most wide spread flavors of Unix. Just in case, that
includes Apple BSD and Linux for Android.