Re: ARPA still undermining Ada

[tarjeij@ulrik.uio.no (Tarjei Jensen)]

In article <37eq7q$t5p@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

>   absolutely, the base technology I was referring to was in these particular
>   cases g++ (the GNU version of c++). I know of a couple efforts using g++
>   where I think that GNAT would at least have been considered if it had been
>   around!

It may sound silly to many people, but we have found that some of the free
software available is not cost effective. E.g. we pay for the DEC C++ (or C
cludge, cludge as I prefer to pronounce it) compiler instead of using the GNU
C++ compiler. The reason is simply that the DEC product is better at catching
errors and generates correct code.

What I am trying to get accross is that it might be worth paying hundreds or
even thousands of dollars for a product if it works better than something that
is free. With that perspective free migth be too expensive.

So choosing C++ instead of Ada might be viewed as as mismanagement of research
funds. However I won't deny anybody the right to spend their time debugging
instead of researching/programming.


Greetings,
 
 
--
// Tarjei T. Jensen - if it ain't broken, fix it anyway!
//    tarjeij@ulrik.uio.no       || +47 51 563411
//   Support you local rescue centre: GET LOST!
// Working, but not speaking for the Norwegian Hydrographic Service.