Re: Overriding discriminants perplexes GNAT 3.14p

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

Dmitry A.Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> Stephen Leake wrote:
> 
> > The question was not "is Ada good for web applications" but "do ACT
> > customers use all of Ada".
> 
> If they do it, then why there are still bugs in the compiler? My point is 
> that should GNAT be really widely used for multimedia, web, computer 
> gaming, embedded, banking then it would have much less bugs.

Give me some examples to support this thesis. I don't believe it!

> >> > So I have to believe that there is at least one ACT customers
> >> > using each part of Ada. Which also helps defeat assumption 1).
> >> 
> >> I hope so. But you should admit that a wider use of GNAT would make it
> >> better.
> > 
> > Well, that is precisely what I am not admitting :). Paying good people
> > to write good code, and getting high-quality feedback from serious
> > users, is an excellent model for producing a quality product. That
> > does _not_ mean you have to have "a lot" of customers; just "enough"
> > customers.
> 
> I cannot resist to remind you how DEC's boss claimed that nobody would need 
> to have a personal computer at home.

How is that relevant?

> > MS Windows has way more users than GNAT; is it better? How about
> > MS VC++?
> 
> MS ignores users because it is a monopoly which has too many of them.

Yes. Which does not answer my question. Your thesis seems to be:

If program A has more users than program B, then program A will have
fewer bugs than program B.

I have quoted two examples (A = MS Windows, B= GNAT, A = MS VC++, B =
GNAT), that contradict this thesis. Can you quote any examples that
support it?

I suspect that DEC Ada 83 had fewer users in its heyday than GNAT has
supported customers now (anybody have any real data on this)? If true,
that also contradicts your thesis, since we agree that DEC Ada 83 had
fewer bugs than GNAT Ada 95.

-- 
-- Stephe