Re: Ada 95 for an ARM-based bare board?

[dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)]

Dmitry A.Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message news:<ajvqd1$1eh7ep$2@ID-77047.news.dfncis.de>...
> Robert Dewar wrote:

> [How somebody could have a "hard evidence" that something will be?  (:-))] 
> Anyway to be important /= to be important to Ada. AFAIK, ARM is already 
> important. A minimal requirement for making it important for Ada is to have 
> a compiler for it.

Very simple, if someone comes to us and says: "I want/need an Ada
compiler
and I would like to see you guys do a GNAT port and I am willing to
pay for
the product," then that will get our attention.

If someone says "Well I am sure that if you write a compiler and sell
it inexpensively, then masses of people will flock to buy it," then
frankly
we won't listen. It's not our business area. Companies can't do
everytyhing.

It may be that there is a real business opportunity there, who knows?
At Ada
Core, we are dubious (partly because we have seen more than one
company try
this approach and fail), but competition is all about people having
different
views. When Tom tried to sell low cost copies of the Windows version
of GNAT,
we were happy to cooperate with him, but unfortunately he just did not
find
enough customers to make it worth while.

So if you folks really think ARM is important and that you can take
the embedded world by storm with a GNAT port for the ARM, go ahead. No
one is
stopping you!

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies