[log in to unmask] quoted and then wrote:

>And we ought to be doing everything we can to debunk the myths,
>rather than simply repeating them.

I don't consider anything posted on this list to be anti-Ada evangelism,
but rather a recounting of real-world experience dealing with objections
to Ada.

>> > > 2)  The language dosen't "support" (take your pick)  as part of
>> > >     the language.  These are normally binary, pointer, or memory
>> > >     operations that are machine specific and fall into the
>> > >     infamous 'Chapter 13'.  Much of this was originally supposed
>> > >     to be addressed in the Ada 9x specification.  I've been out
>> > >     of the Ada programming area for the last few years so I can't
>> > >     say if they have or haven't addressed these issues.
>> >
>> > But you work for Aonix. In my opinion, you should try to find out
>> > some facts before you write stuff like the above. It shows a
>> > certain ignorance about your own products that is not very becoming.
>> > It's tacky just to pass others' BS along to wider audiences.
>>
>> Wrong division.  We don't use Ada at this location.
>
>Then IMHO you should remain silent rather than just repeat myths.
>Or call your Ada folks and ask them, before posting something like this.
>You're a member of Team-Ada; presumably you have some interest in
>Ada, so whether or not your division uses the other division's
>products, you could take a bit of time to inform yourself.

I would not presume that Aonix thinks it his job at all to know about Ada.
From the viewpoint of this list, however, sharing such information _is_
the mission.

>> > GNAT is NOT freeware, and NOT public domain. Again, I think it behooves
>> > you to take just a few minutes to understand just what a Free Software
>> > compiler is. In the Unix community, they refer to Linux as "open-source."
>> > I think that best describes GNAT as well. Words are important; please
>> > learn to use them properly. Let's work to reduce the BS content of
>> > this list and this industry.
>>
>> Would you classify gnat as shareware?
>
>No.
>
>> I'm not aware of anyone asking for
>> money for using gnat and I thought it was under the GNU copyleft
protection.
>
>That is EXACTLY what it is. It is Free Software, which is a defined term.
>Free Software is NOT "freeware", and it is CERTAINLY not public domain.
>It could not possibly be public domain if it is copyrighted.
>The GNU "copyleft" is a COPYRIGHT. Read the GPL (attached).

I don't believe it is a requirement of anyone to study those legalities to
participate in Team Ada.  The point being made was that <whatever GNAT is>
has relieved for some the price pressure of compilers.  For others it has
not, but just like programming languages, no business economic model meets
the needs of all.


Larry Kilgallen