Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?

[<reedkotler@hotmail.com>]

There used to be a book called "How to Make Yourself Miserable".
Once suggestion was "Using the tip of your tongue,  try and make your
gums bleed".

I would say programming in Ada in the year 2000 is a similar thing.

Who is still programming in Ada? and why?

You should get some governement agency to pay for that if it's
still important or else some Ada guy can.

Why would some C/C++ programmer want to do that?

reed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gene Montgomery" <g.montgomery@gte.net>
To: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 8:36 AM
Subject: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?


> 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.