From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gene Montgomery <g.montgomery@gte.net>
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:23:00 -0000
Message-id: <39C6366C.17C3E994@gte.net>
X-SW-Source: 2000-09/msg00400.html

It is a wonderment to me that the Ada 95 compilation system,
originally built with public funds, called GNAT (for
GNU Ada Translator, IIRC), and organized according to some
consultation by RMS, has not been taken under the wing
of the gnu crew.  I have not found Ada Core Technologies (ACT)
particularly user-friendly, and have wondered why the gnu crew
would not have decided to add Ada to the already substantial
capabilities of GCC.  ACT just doesn't keep it up - my
gcc libraries are never in sync with the gnat libraries. If
gnat were to be just another mode of operation of the gcc
package, these kinds of issues would be solved by the gnu crew.

I like Ada, and know of a number of other folks who think
it is an excellent language.  I submit that it is at least
as popular as chill or objective-C.  

Gene Montgomery, retired software developer.
begin:vcard 
n:Montgomery;Gene
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:g.montgomery@gte.net
note;quoted-printable:-- =0D=0APursuant to U.S. code,title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Section 227,=0D=0Aand consistent with Oregon State Law, any and all nonsolicited commercial=0D=0AE-mail sent to this address is subject to a consulting fee of $500.00 U.S.=0D=0AE-Mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.=0D=0AConsult < http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html > for details.
x-mozilla-cpt:;11168
fn:Gene Montgomery
end:vcard