From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,79f5c8d5de610eef
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-26 15:22:21 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!cmcl2!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!nobody
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Verdix VADS ADA or GNU ADA on an SGI...
Date: 26 Sep 1994 11:02:23 -0400
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Message-ID: <366npv$jqc@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <1994Sep22.143838.388@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu
Date: 1994-09-26T11:02:23-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Martin Connor's question seems a good opportunity to make an informal
announcement that SGI has signed a contract with Ada Core Technologies
that provides for validation and full product-level documentation for
GNAT on SGI workstations. SGI is currently integrating GNAT into its
high level toolset, and GNAT will be fully supported in this environment.

A note to Martin's accountants. This may seem surprising coming from me,
but I think it is a big mistake to base your selection of Ada technology
on cost alone. I would much prefer that you select GNAT only if it makes
technical sense. For example, if you need to deliver a mission critical
application using a validated Ada 83 compiler in the very near future, then
it is hard for me to believe that GNAT is the sensible choice. If on the
other hand your needs are more flexible, and Ada 9X support is important
then it's worth doing a careful evaluation of GNAT.

Also, be careful to fully evaluate costs. Sure you can get a copy of
GNAT for $0, but that doesn't represent the full costs of using fully
supported software with appropriate tools.

It is important to compare apples with apples here. In particular, it would
be very misleading to compare the cost of acquisition of an unsupported
version of GNAT with the acquisition of fully supported proprietary software.
Remember the Cygnus slogan (they are the company that supports GCC): "we
make free software affordable".

It would be too bad if people inappropriately selected GNAT based on
misleading and incompletely cost issues alone. That won't do anyone
any good.