TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Jeffrey Creem <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 13 Mar 1997 22:17:19 -0500
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Jeffrey Creem <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (35 lines)
Bikin' Bob wrote:
> Daniel Wengelin wrote:
> > Fellow Teamers,
> <<snip>>
> > Then comes a few unverified rumours that ObjectAda
> > (or any of the other compilers that I have not personally used
> > recently) barfs on the third level of generic instantiation, or
> > something.
> >
> We've been using VADS Self for Win32 intensively for the past couple of
> years, and it has problems that are caused by the use of generics.  I
> won't go into details here on the list, if you want to know more, e-mail
> me.
> Even though I'm NOT a C/C++ proponent by any stretch of the imagination,
> it doesn't seem to be helpful to our cause that a compiler that costs as
> much as VADS, and that is held out to be the best available, has
> problems such as we've seen here.
> --

Actually it has been my experience that the overall quality of
the VADS line has dropped over the last few years. On a previous
project we used VADS for a 68040 target and I was often surprised
at just how good the generated code was. We are now using it on
a MIPS target and so far I am not impressed. In general Rational
seems to be Apexizing the VADS line (making it slower bloated and more
like what "people expect" from a Ada compiler).

Even with all of its lumps (mostly tiny ones) GNAT seems to be
a better product than most of the latest Rational offerings.