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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c1983ae2deb642ab X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-28 11:04:27 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada -vs- GNAT Date: 28 May 2002 13:55:35 -0400 Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (skates.gsfc.nasa.gov) Message-ID: References: <3CEFCC05.16C30A69@adaworks.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1022608955 23693 128.183.220.71 (28 May 2002 18:02:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.gsfc.nasa.gov NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 May 2002 18:02:35 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24872 Date: 2002-05-28T18:02:35+00:00 List-Id: Richard Riehle writes: > XP is a reaction to the Industrial > Engineering model that has characterized so much software engineering > practice. Well, I find that Ada and XP go well together. As to whether having a Standard for Ada is a good thing, I think it is. It means I can use GNAT to write and unit test code, then recompile with DDCI for the 1750 target, with full confidence that the language semantics is the same, and all of it is implemented. One of the reasons I _don't_ like C++ is that I cannot do this with confidence. On another current project, we're using Gnu C++ for unit tests, and Green Hills for the target. We are _not_ allowed to use the full C++ language, because neither compiler meets the standard. > When a Standard keeps a language from meeting its full potential, is > that a good thing. Standards do not limit languages; customers limit languages. That includes me! GNAT is open source; if you want an Ada variant, go fund it! As Robert keeps pointing out, that was one of the original motivations behind producing an open source Ada compiler; people (mainly universities) would be free to play around with the language. Yet no one has done it yet in a serious way. > > So, it ACT deems it useful to add something as simply as attibutes to its > compiler to accomplish things not pre-determined by the standard, so > be it. As long as there is a way to say "warn me if I deviate from the standard", I agree with this (GNAT has such a switch, last I checked). > This could be one of the features that differentiates their product > from that of other compiler publishers. That's the Microsoft way. The true ACT way is to distinguish their real product (which is support and service) by delivering better quality. -- -- Stephe