> Hearing from Robert Dewar, that DOS will be ignored
> in future versions of GNAT beyond 3.07
> I am concerned about the spreading of Ada:
> At least GNAT3.10 should be ported to DOS in order to
> have a relatively high reliable compiler there.
> grass roots are important.
I'm not sure Robert reads this mailing list, but I think he'd merely
point out that GNAT 3.10 could definitely be supported in DOS,
_provided_ 1) Somebody paid ACT to do it, or 2) Somebody used the GNAT
3.10 public sources/DJGPP to build a version for DOS.
While I agree that supporting as many platforms as possible is a Good
Thing, it's my personal preference that Ada vendors, ACT included, put
a tremendous effort into the creation of freely available interfaces
to popular C/C++/Java products. These APIs should be developed in
cooperation with the vendors of the products (let's say Versant, as an
IMHO, we are facing, once again, resistance to Ada because of an
ever-increasing number of C++ APIs that have no suitable Ada
counterpart. The lack of interest on the part of the vendors is to be
expected, but we shouldn't let that deter us. We continue to need
improvement in tools (debuggers especially!) and APIs.
I'm not trying to "dream big" here, I don't expect Microsoft to
suddenly distribute Ada interfaces to stuff, but I'm also disappointed
at the lack of "presence". Ada95 is superior to C++ in almost every
way, yet C++ continues to roll unchallenged (or at least without an
alternative) in the marketplace. Yeah, some of you are probably
saying "Java", but in my biz, Visual Simulation, you might as well say
"Interpreted BASIC" -- Java technology has a few years to go before it
can even hope to compete with C/C++/Ada compiler performance.
I've rambled enough for now.