Re: Ada Dot Net ?

[Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>]

"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.

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.

> 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 :).

> the gcc community.

-- 
-- Stephe