What exactly is the licensing situation with Gnat?

[Hubert]

So I am relatively new to Ada and I never really looked much into all
the Open Source license models that are out there, so I don't know much
about the differences. I'm trying to understand the particular situation
that Adacore's Gnat package has.

Can someone please tell me if I am wrong here:

A) The compiler is basically GPL meaning anybody can copy it.
B) The Ada and Gnat libraries that come with it are also GPL so if you
use them to write a program and give that program away you must also
give away the source code.
C) If you buy the Pro version your receive the runtime libraries with a
different license that allows you to sell a program written with them
without giving out the code.

D) Here I am not sure: If you write a program that does not use the Ada
and Gnat libraries, then you are not obliged to give away the source
code as well since you dont use any GPL licensed code in your program?

E) What about the Ada.Standard library which is a pseudo library and
built into the compiler? One has to use elements from that library,
there's no way around that.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Markus Schöpflin]

No, there are basically three versions of Gnat:

1) FSF: Is GPL but contains an exception that allows you the create programs
which are not GPL (basically the same as e.g. g++)

2) AdaCore Libre: Also GPL, but no exception. Hence your program is also GPL.

3) AdaCore Pro: Commercial and allows you to create programs which are not GPL.

Markus

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

Hubert wrote:

> I'm trying to understand the particular situation that Adacore's Gnat
> package has.

AdaCore distributes two "GNAT" packages:

1) GNAT Pro
2) GNAT GPL

You should be aware that the Free Software Foundation (FSF), Debian and
others distribute a third variant of GNAT, typically known as GNAT FSF.
GNAT FSF has more or less the same license as GNAT Pro, but the releases
tend to fall a bit behind GNAT Pro and GNAT GPL.

> A) The compiler is basically GPL meaning anybody can copy it.

True for both.

> B) The Ada and Gnat libraries that come with it are also GPL so if you
> use them to write a program and give that program away you must also
> give away the source code.

Not true for GNAT Pro. True for GNAT GPL.

> C) If you buy the Pro version your receive the runtime libraries with
> a different license that allows you to sell a program written with
> them without giving out the code.

You don't buy GNAT Pro. You buy a support contract. With the support
contract you "magically" get access to GNAT Pro.

> D) Here I am not sure: If you write a program that does not use the
> Ada and Gnat libraries, then you are not obliged to give away the
> source code as well since you dont use any GPL licensed code in your
> program?

True for GNAT Pro. Not necessarily true for GNAT GPL, as the run-time
library for GNAT GPL is plain GPL, and typically will be compiled into
your application.

> E) What about the Ada.Standard library which is a pseudo library and
> built into the compiler? One has to use elements from that library,
> there's no way around that.

If you compile your application with GNAT Pro, everything is fine. If
you compile it with GNAT GPL, you should assume that the application is
plain GPL.


As I see it, the main reason for downloading and using GNAT GPL is to
get to play with the latest version of GNAT (without spending money on a
support contract). If you want to be able to distribute your software
according to your preferred license, you should stick to GNAT FSF and/or
make enough money to pay for a support contract.

Greetings,

Jacob
--
"Universities are not part of the nation's security organisation,
they are not the nation's research laboratory either: they are
the nation's universities." -- E.W. Dijkstra

[Hubert]

Ok, thanks everyone, I see that it is really complicated when you get
down to the details, but in principle it's like if you sell a program,
you need the Pro version or you use the FSF version which is most likely
older and may not have all the feature or current bug fixes.

The good thing is that the GPL version allows me to play around and see
if I can incorporate Ada tools into our project and then buy the pro
version later, if it turns out to be useful.

[Markus Schöpflin]

Am 10.11.2014 um 12:09 schrieb Hubert:

[...]

> The good thing is that the GPL version allows me to play around and see if I
> can incorporate Ada tools into our project and then buy the pro version later,
> if it turns out to be useful.

I would start with the FSF version and use the AdaCore versions only when you
encounter bugs that are not easily worked around.

Markus

[David Botton]

> I would start with the FSF version and use the AdaCore versions only when you
> encounter bugs that are not easily worked around.

Despite my open disdain for AdaCore's switch in licenses of their pubic versions to a GPL virus run time. I would say that it depends on platform and what you are looking to do if it makes sense to start with the FSF version or not.

On Windows for example until MinGW is updated to a more recent compiler and includes GPR tools you are probably better off with the GPL version regardless of use.

Based on what you wrote in previous posts, since your project would later on be looking at support best to start with the GPL version regardless of platform in my opinion.

David Botton

[Hubert]

Yes, plus I really need the GPS editor for my Ada code at the moment. I
have no experience whatsoever with Emacs or Vim and I am somewhat
addicted to having a hierarchy browser (I know we wrote big programs in
the 90s without it but I couldn't imagine that anymore). I want to take
a serious look at the new Slickedit version when it is released and then
I hope I can use that to edit, compile and debug, since I'm having my
problems with the debug environment in GPS it is a bit cumbersome with 2
or 3 steps necessary to start a program under the debugger.

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 11.11.14 01:09, Hubert wrote:
> I have no experience whatsoever with Emacs or Vim and I am somewhat addicted to having a hierarchy browser (I know we wrote big programs in the 90s without it but I couldn't imagine that anymore).

For the record, Emacs has speedbar, which (for Ada mode version 4.x)
displays a hierarchy of folders, Ada files, and the declarations
contained therein. These are grouped by kind. Clicking on a leaf displays
the corresponding item in the editor, in context.

[Hubert]

Good to know, it sounds like some sort of browser after all. I will wait
for Slick edit however since I had some experience with it in the past.
At the moment it looks like it will take another month or two I guess,
they still seem to have major stability problems although they are
supposedly far in the testing process.

[jo...@peppermind.com]

> Yes, plus I really need the GPS editor for my Ada code at the moment.

I would recommend using the GPS editor of Adacore GNAT GPL in combination with GNAT FSF as the compiler. That's what I do, and at least on Ubuntu it works fine. Just remember not to use any libraries provided by Adacore's GNAT.

[Hubert]

On 11/11/2014 5:37 AM, jo...@peppermind.com wrote:
>
>> Yes, plus I really need the GPS editor for my Ada code at the moment.
>
> I would recommend using the GPS editor of Adacore GNAT GPL in combination with GNAT FSF as the compiler. That's what I do, and at least on Ubuntu it works fine. Just remember not to use any libraries provided by Adacore's GNAT.
>

I never thought about that combination, I thought you have to use the
compiler that comes with GPS but it makes sense.

Speaking of this, what are the libraries that are specific to the GPL
version? I know the Ada libraries are the language standard, so I assume
all the Gnat libraries are extensions provided by Adacore?

[David Botton]

They essentially virused the standard Ada runtime. It is certainly a question if it would hold in truth legally, but basically even with no runtime they would claim your resulting executable is GPL.

David Botton

[Alan Jump]

On Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:10:26 PM UTC-8, David Botton wrote:
> They essentially virused the standard Ada runtime. It is certainly a question if it would hold in truth legally, but basically even with no runtime they would claim your resulting executable is GPL.
>
> David Botton

"Virused"?

'Splain, please.

[David Botton]

Some viruses can be good, some viruses can be bad, and some viruses that are good are being abused.

By using the GPL in a compiler run time, initial boot loader code, etc. AdaCore places a "license virus" on your software, i.e. regardless of your intended license it is now under the full GPL.

That may be a good thing for OS tools even compiler tools, etc. perhaps you may even prefer the GPL, but when placed in a compiler it is an abuse designed to make an open source compiler Shareware at best.

David Botton

[Simon Clubley]

s/compiler/compiler's runtime/

surely ?

> Shareware at best.
>

And what no-one has mentioned so far this time around is that you
simply would not be having this conversation when talking about
normal C/C++ compilers.

This whole licence situation is yet another barrier in the way of
getting people to use Ada.

Simon.

PS: I've been around the Ada world long enough to remember the days
when GtkAda was GMGPL. That little fiasco killed my use of Ada in
GTK based front ends stone dead so I can understand how someone new
to the Ada world might look at the GPL compiler situation and then
go and choose another language which simply doesn't have those
issues.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

[Hubert]

Ok, I was wondering about that for a while, hence my question about the
GPL situation with the libraries. I was under the impressino that the
thing that makes the resulting program GPL was the libraries and not the
compiler, but this explains now why any output from the GPL compiler is
GPL if the runtime that is essential to run the compiled program is also
GPL.
The whole situation is not so easily understood and the explanation in
the Libre Adacore package don't make it much clearer either. I was
thinking if it is the Libraries only, one could omit them and write a
new set of libraries, but this essentially rules that out.

Now this raises another question. I have been reading through the posts
regarding Gnoga ( a great project by the way ) and it is my
understanding that the applications developed with Gnoga can run on a
server and the browser on the client side only render the output. How is
the situation with that sort of stuff? If you write a server application
that is never given out, can you do that with the GPL version?

[David Botton]

> Ok, I was wondering about that for a while, hence my question about the
> GPL situation with the libraries. I was under the impressino that the
> thing that makes the resulting program GPL was the libraries and not the
> compiler, but this explains now why any output from the GPL compiler is
> GPL if the runtime that is essential to run the compiled program is also
> GPL.

No, the GNAT GPL is a "special" case designed to virus software. The FSF versions do not contain code that would do that and so even though the compiler is GPL it does not produce executables that would be under the GPL unless you linked in some library that did that.

> The whole situation is not so easily understood and the explanation in
> the Libre Adacore package don't make it much clearer either. I was
> thinking if it is the Libraries only, one could omit them and write a
> new set of libraries, but this essentially rules that out.

it is possible I am wrong about the binding code, but I am under the impression they hold that anything produced by their public compiler is GPL unless you have GNAT PRO.

> Now this raises another question. I have been reading through the posts
> regarding Gnoga ( a great project by the way ) and it is my
> understanding that the applications developed with Gnoga can run on a
> server and the browser on the client side only render the output. How is
> the situation with that sort of stuff? If you write a server application
> that is never given out, can you do that with the GPL version?

Yes you can :) It is a loophole. Since you are not distributing your binaries only using them server side you do not have to share the source.

Honestly I am actually a fan of the GPL and hope you will when you can share the sources and of course changes and extensions to Gnoga as well.

The FSF versions do work with Gnoga as well. (For windows MinGW will be updated soon and will work and for Linux you need for now Debian sid)

David Botton

[Hubert]

> Honestly I am actually a fan of the GPL and hope you will when you can share the sources and of course changes and extensions to Gnoga as well.
>

Yes it is not bad for tools and stuff. Of course, when you write an
application that you want to make money with, it's not so good. My first
project I'll be working on soon is a text user interface library and I
intend to make that public, although not many people will be interested
in text output, but I think that for simple tools etc it is easier to
have a simple UI that to get into all the overhead that a graphical UI
comes with.

[Pascal Obry]

Le mardi 11 novembre 2014 à 16:50 -0800, David Botton a écrit :
> By using the GPL in a compiler run time, initial boot loader code,
> etc. AdaCore places a "license virus" on your software, i.e.
> regardless of your intended license it is now under the full GPL.

Well another point of view is that it encourage Open Source softwares.
And after all we all know that we can sell Open Source software. The
only requirement is to make available the sources if someone ask for
them when you sell the software.

I bet this is in fact no big deal for many applications.

--
Pascal Obry / Magny Les Hameaux (78)

The best way to travel is by means of imagination

http://v2p.fr.eu.org
http://www.obry.net

gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key F949BD3B

[Gour]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 17:24:50 -0800 (PST)
David Botton <da...@botton.com> wrote:

> Yes you can :) It is a loophole. Since you are not distributing your
> binaries only using them server side you do not have to share the
> source.

What is the possibility that the hole might be eliminated by Adacore
if e.g. Gnoga become (too) popular allowing people to take advantage of
it without getting into Pro contracts (which is probably anyway too
expensive for smaller players)?


Sincerely,
Gour

--
Before giving up this present body, if one is able to tolerate
the urges of the material senses and check the force of desire and
anger, he is well situated and is happy in this world.

[Gour]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 01:02:56 +0000 (UTC)
Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:

> PS: I've been around the Ada world long enough to remember the days
> when GtkAda was GMGPL. That little fiasco killed my use of Ada in
> GTK based front ends stone dead so I can understand how someone new
> to the Ada world might look at the GPL compiler situation and then
> go and choose another language which simply doesn't have those
> issues.

You're right.

I was not at all thinking about it when considering to use Ada to write
(multi-platform) desktop app using GtkAda, but now I must say that it
sheds different light on using Ada for GUI app.

Too bad, considering people have some other language choices to consider
for the task...


Sincerely,
Gour

--
A person is said to be elevated in yoga when, having renounced
all material desires, he neither acts for sense gratification
nor engages in fruitive activities.

[Simon Wright]

David Botton <da...@botton.com> writes:

> It is certainly a question if it would hold in truth legally, but
> basically even with no runtime they would claim your resulting
> executable is GPL.

What would you have copied? It's the *runtime* that has had the
*runtime* exception rmoved from it.

[Simon Wright]

Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:

> PS: I've been around the Ada world long enough to remember the days
> when GtkAda was GMGPL.

"was" -> "stopped being" ?

[Hubert]

> Well another point of view is that it encourage Open Source softwares.
> And after all we all know that we can sell Open Source software. The
> only requirement is to make available the sources if someone ask for
> them when you sell the software.
>
> I bet this is in fact no big deal for many applications.
>

That is basically correct. Of course it depends on the situation. Fir
instance, I licensed a 3D graphics engine some 2 years ago. It cost
about 500$ at the time. You would get the complete source code with it.

However the variable names were so cryptic, and there were absolutely no
comments in the source code, I mean zero, nada, I have never ever seen
such a void in my life. I believe the developer was using a tool to
remove all comments before he gave out the source.

The effect was really that you could hardly use the code to do anything
like fixing a problem or adding a feature. Analyzing the source, say to
write your own engine would be a complete waste of time. So I guess
handing out the source code is not the terrible thing that closed source
developer might think it is.

I am thinking about releasing the source of our game client too in the
future (it's in C++) so that maybe people can develop their own client
based on it. But of course I would never give out the code to the server
part since that's where the money is generated.

[Simon Wright]

Hubert <herrd...@fumanchu.com> writes:

> Ok, I was wondering about that for a while, hence my question about
> the GPL situation with the libraries. I was under the impressino that
> the thing that makes the resulting program GPL was the libraries and
> not the compiler, but this explains now why any output from the GPL
> compiler is GPL if the runtime that is essential to run the compiled
> program is also GPL.

GCC itself has always been GPL; WindRiver, for example, have always
provided GCC as one of the compilers their customers could use to build
proprietary applications.

To quote from the GNU Licences FAQ[1],

The GCC Runtime Library Exception covers libgcc, libstdc++,
libfortran, libgomp, libdecnumber, and other libraries distributed
with GCC. The exception is meant to allow people to distribute
programs compiled with GCC under terms of their choice, even when
parts of these libraries are included in the executable as part of
the compilation process.

and from the GCC Runtime Library Exception Rationale[2],

[...] the FSF decided long ago to allow developers to use GCC's
libraries to compile any program, regardless of its
license. Developing nonfree software is not good for society, and we
have no obligation to make it easier. We decided to permit this
because forbidding it seemed likely to backfire, and because using
small libraries to limit the use of GCC seemed like the tail wagging
the dog.

This is why the FSF GCC Ada runtime _does_ carry the Runtime Library
Exception.

The last sentence is, of course, borne out by this present row.

> The whole situation is not so easily understood and the explanation in
> the Libre Adacore package don't make it much clearer either. I was
> thinking if it is the Libraries only, one could omit them and write a
> new set of libraries, but this essentially rules that out.

For info, which explanation? I've certainly heard what I considered to
be misleading statements on this from AdaCore, but that could well have
been because they were trying to persuade management and I was only
present as technical assistance.

You could write a new set of libraries (probably working from the FSF
compilers) but that would be a large task (mammoth if you started from
scratch, and moreover a moving target).

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LibGCCException
[2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html

[Simon Wright]

David Botton <da...@botton.com> writes:

>> Now this raises another question. I have been reading through the
>> posts regarding Gnoga ( a great project by the way ) and it is my
>> understanding that the applications developed with Gnoga can run on a
>> server and the browser on the client side only render the output. How
>> is the situation with that sort of stuff? If you write a server
>> application that is never given out, can you do that with the GPL
>> version?
>
> Yes you can :) It is a loophole. Since you are not distributing your
> binaries only using them server side you do not have to share the
> source.

You might be interested in the Affero GPL?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html

[Simon Wright]

David Botton <da...@botton.com> writes:

>> The whole situation is not so easily understood and the explanation
>> in the Libre Adacore package don't make it much clearer either. I was
>> thinking if it is the Libraries only, one could omit them and write a
>> new set of libraries, but this essentially rules that out.
>
> it is possible I am wrong about the binding code, but I am under the
> impression they hold that anything produced by their public compiler
> is GPL unless you have GNAT PRO.

They would, wouldn't they.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Rice-Davies#.22He_would.2C_wouldn.27t_he.3F.22

[Hubert]

> You could write a new set of libraries (probably working from the FSF
> compilers) but that would be a large task (mammoth if you started from
> scratch, and moreover a moving target).

Well I was more talking hypothetically, I certainly have no urge to do
that. I just recently dropped a huge proprietary library we were using
for 10 years or so in order to move to STL for the first time and I
appreciate the power these libraries offer over smaller proprietary ones.

[Hubert]

> You might be interested in the Affero GPL?
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html

No I'm not writing anything that I want to protect for myself. I'm just
trying to understand what the situation with Ada is since we are
discussing a port to Ada as a possibility, however that would still be a
few years in the future to be realistic, for the time being it is just
inhouse tool programming, but I am always in favor of checking out
feasibility first before I spend a considerable amount of time getting
into a matter only to find out that a simple issue makes my whole effort
obsolete. That's why I usually ask for the price of a program before I
download the trial version and if I don't get that info, I know it's
because the price is exorbitant.

I know Ada would be well suited for our project from a language point of
view, the question is now what about the license situation. In general
the move (meaning getting the pro license) would only be feasible if our
project in the current version generates enough money (which we won't
know before next year), since I know the price is in the 10K$ range. If
not I will take a hard look at the FSF version, what puts me off for the
time being is the comments I read so far that the FSF version is behind
the GPL version, however I don't know yet in what particular way, if
it's missing language features, missing libraries, having bugs that are
fixed in the GPL version etc.

[Thomas Jahrne]

On 2014-11-12, Pascal Obry <pas...@obry.net> wrote:
> Le mardi 11 novembre 2014 ?? 16:50 -0800, David Botton a ??crit :

>> By using the GPL in a compiler run time, initial boot loader code,
>> etc. AdaCore places a "license virus" on your software, i.e.
>> regardless of your intended license it is now under the full GPL.
>
> Well another point of view is that it encourage Open Source softwares.
> And after all we all know that we can sell Open Source software.

Although that is technically true it doesn't happen often. Especially it's a
little funny in this context since Adacore doesn't sell GNAT they just sell
the support. But there is a little gotcha since you can't get the toolchain
unless you buy support for it.

All funded with U.S. taxpayer money.

I call BULLSHIT.

> I bet this in fact no big deal for many applications.

Again in the context of Ada where everything is virtually 100% defence and
the remainder government projects it is certainly a big deal and you will
never see this source code. Which is why they are able to get people to buy
their toolchain oops I meant support for their toolchain.

Thomas

[Mark Carroll]

Hubert <herrd...@fumanchu.com> writes:

> If not I will take a hard look at the FSF version, what puts me off
> for the time being is the comments I read so far that the FSF version
> is behind the GPL version, however I don't know yet in what particular
> way, if it's missing language features, missing libraries, having bugs
> that are fixed in the GPL version etc.

I also have the impression that there's a lack of assurance that
bug-fixes, etc. will keep flowing to the FSF version, and there's a
shortage of cheap or free alternatives for compiling closed code?
(It's not like I am funded by CPFF contracts from DoD BAAs.)

I had been looking at creating an GUI application that would have to
work well on Windows, so I also have a bit of work to do in
understanding more about the dependency on MinGW for that, but maybe
that's all transparent and wonderful, just new to me.

I don't need to make language decisions right now, but all this is
keeping me nervously on the fence; I don't want to commit to a direction
for which affordable support is in danger of withering and, while I had
thought it a good idea to use a coming project to learn and try out Ada,
it is not like I am having to develop near-real-time embedded systems or
suchlike.

-- Mark

[Mark Carroll]

Pascal Obry <pas...@obry.net> writes:

> Le mardi 11 novembre 2014 à 16:50 -0800, David Botton a écrit :
>> By using the GPL in a compiler run time, initial boot loader code,
>> etc. AdaCore places a "license virus" on your software, i.e.
>> regardless of your intended license it is now under the full GPL.
>
> Well another point of view is that it encourage Open Source softwares.
> And after all we all know that we can sell Open Source software. The
> only requirement is to make available the sources if someone ask for
> them when you sell the software.
>
> I bet this is in fact no big deal for many applications.

In the case of the full GPL, the requirements are far more than that!
The customer have the ability to tweak and sell it themselves, etc.

-- Mark

[Hubert]

> I don't need to make language decisions right now, but all this is
> keeping me nervously on the fence; I don't want to commit to a direction
> for which affordable support is in danger of withering and, while I had
> thought it a good idea to use a coming project to learn and try out Ada,
> it is not like I am having to develop near-real-time embedded systems or
> suchlike.
>
> -- Mark
>

Well from what I have learned so far, I see the situation as follows:
- If you want to make and release full GPL software you're good to go
with the GPL version of Ada
- If you write code for Missiles or Nuclear Power Plants, you're good to
go with the Pro version
- If you're a little guy wanting to write a professional piece of
software that you want to sell but it is not mission critical you are
somewhat hanging in the air.

It is my opinion that what is missing is some sort of intermediate
license for people who just want to write small scale applications and
don't have the security requirements of big projects adn thus don't need
the support that Adacore offers. Something like Turbo Pascal in the past
or maybe even Visual Studio in the Personal Edition or so.

Personally I wouldn't mind paying a few 100$ right now for a license
that would allow me to write closed source applications even if I get no
support or just some way to report bugs which may or may not be fixed
later. I don't need a minuteman response if I find a bug with Ada (which
is more than unlikely to happen anyway). the current Pro license is
something I consider but only given our particular situation where we
sell a product first and then rewrite part or all of it in Ada and have
the money to get the license. I would not consider it if I were to start
a brand new project of which I have no idea how the sales situation will be.

So something like a personal license that would be nice to have.

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 12.11.14 10:08, Thomas Jahrne wrote:
> Especially it's a
> little funny in this context since Adacore doesn't sell GNAT they just sell
> the support.

No.

https://archive.fosdem.org/2012/interview/robert-dewar

Find "sell".

In the corresponding video, the president of said company more emphatically
states that they do sell software. Have you seen one AdaCore contract?

> But there is a little gotcha since you can't get the toolchain
> unless you buy support for it.

No.

What part of the AdaCore tool chain centered around GNAT can one not
get for free, and compatibly with both FOSS and closed source development?
The GNAT stuff, GPS, etc. are also available as part of Linux systems.

(The other remarks: about trains in France, the UK, and elsewhere, as well
as cars from Japan being 100% run by the military seem to lend themselves
to an estimation of their value.)

[jm.ta...@gmail.com]

> - If you're a little guy wanting to write a professional piece of
> software that you want to sell but it is not mission critical you are
> somewhat hanging in the air.

10K$/seat makes no sense. Obviously Adacore is not interested in you.

There is a market of deep pockets for Ada (so far), but there is no market of small Ada developers. They have locked customers with deep pockets and no competence, so they are not interested in other market.

You could argue that such market is shrinking and could die.
So?
Gnat investment was recovered long ago (did they invest or was DoD's investment?). Now they have no advertising costs, almost no development costs (what they have? a developer? two?) whatever they get from deep pockets is almost net profit.
Creating a market for Ada small developers would mean to create an ecosystem, compete against other languages. Why should they invest such amount of resources in an uncertain adventure?

so, when the deep pockets market die, they'll let Gnat die. You are not in the equation.

[J-P. Rosen]

Le 12/11/2014 11:31, jm.ta...@gmail.com a écrit :
Please do not spread information that you know nothing about (and I am
not an employee of AdaCore).

> [...] Now they have no advertising costs

They are certainly the company that invests the most in advertising, for
example by actively supporting Ada associations (including Ada-France
and Ada-Europe), providing material (recently, Ada-France had a booth at
Linux expo, where we distributed Barnes book and other valuable
material, provided free of charge by AdaCore), etc...

> almost no
>> development costs (what they have? a developer? two?)

They have tens of developers, actively improving the compiler and
environment tools.

--
J-P. Rosen
Adalog
2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX
Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00
http://www.adalog.fr

[Hubert]

> There is a market of deep pockets for Ada (so far), but there is no market of small Ada developers. They have locked customers with deep pockets and no competence, so they are not interested in other market.

I agree here. I guess though it's a bit of a chicken-egg problem.
without software to get one started with Ada, there is no incentive to
use Ada over C++ but without little guys using Ada, there is little
incentive to write software others could use.

The Gnoga project might be something to get people started though. Part
of what put me off two years ago was that Gtk wasn't working very well
for me. The layout editor was messing up half my screen and looked not
very user friendly, so my conclusion was without a decent User Interface
library it makes little sense for me to invest more time.

[Simon Wright]

Hubert <herrd...@fumanchu.com> writes:

>> You might be interested in the Affero GPL?
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html
>
> No I'm not writing anything that I want to protect for myself.

I was aimng that remark more at David.

[David Botton]

No possibility since FSF gnat works just as well.

David Botton

[David Botton]

> Well another point of view is that it encourage Open Source softwares.

Not true and the reason the FSF compilers do not encumber their executables like AdaCore's GPL version. Even they, who are the father of Free software advocates, know that the GPL in this context is a poison to advocating the use of the GPL itself.

David Botton

[David Botton]

>was not at all thinking about it when considering to use Ada to write
> (multi-platform) desktop app using GtkAda, but now I must say that it
> sheds different light on using Ada for GUI app.

Thankfully you can use Gnoga now and an FSF compiler :)

David Botton

[David Botton]

> It is my opinion that what is missing is some sort of intermediate
> license for people who just want to write small scale applications and
> don't have the security requirements of big projects adn thus don't need
> the support that Adacore offers.

I had a meeting this last Monday with AdaCore with a business model to make that possible and lucrative for them.

With or without them, I have a solution to this currently in the works and I'll give them a bit of time before I push the sans AdaCore solution.

I would rather do it with them despite what they did to the community with the GPL version, total disregard of it, they have put in the work on the compiler and the language that deserves giving them a chance to be part of the solution.

David Botton

[David Botton]

>(what they have? a developer? two?)

Huh? I can tell you right now they have a huge team and top notch. I don't like a decision they make but this is false information. There is tons of development going on.

David Botton

[David Botton]

> > No I'm not writing anything that I want to protect for myself.
>
> I was aimng that remark more at David.

That is the bomb against the loophole, I don't want it closed. I'd almost say to not let people know about that effort :)

David Botton

[Pascal Obry]

But then if the FSF compiler is used to create Open Source software
that's fine. But then again, what's wrong with the GPL one? At the end
you have an Open Source software :)

I understand that GNAT FSF can be used for closed sources software, but
again how many they are? I'm not saying there is nothing, but as I said
in my first post the GPL do cover the most majority of Ada projects
needs.

Regards,

--
Pascal Obry / Magny Les Hameaux (78)

The best way to travel is by means of imagination

http://v2p.fr.eu.org
http://www.obry.net

gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key F949BD3B

[Gour]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 02:44:28 -0800
Hubert <herrd...@fumanchu.com> wrote:

> The Gnoga project might be something to get people started though.

I'm still not fully sold out on Gnoga and admit that (maybe) I'd be
happier having choice of maintained/stable wx/Qt bindings for
multi-platform GUI app.

> Part of what put me off two years ago was that Gtk wasn't working
> very well for me. The layout editor was messing up half my screen and
> looked not very user friendly, so my conclusion was without a decent
> User Interface library it makes little sense for me to invest more
> time.

...and hearing about yout past Gtk experience is not encouraging,
although Ada itself looks as one of the rare sane choices.


Sincerely,
Gour

--
A person who is not disturbed by the incessant flow of
desires — that enter like rivers into the ocean, which is
ever being filled but is always still — can alone achieve
peace, and not the man who strives to satisfy such desires.

[David Botton]

> But then if the FSF compiler is used to create Open Source software
> that's fine. But then again, what's wrong with the GPL one? At the end
> you have an Open Source software :)

Because for businesses that doesn't work. Most people like me who are happy to write and share GMGPL and GPL software are often making a living for companies that _WILL NOT_ allow GPL executables with their corporate IP mixed in.

So a GPL compiler _kills_ Ada use for everyone but those developing OS tools or other such projects.

We want to advocate Ada and the GPL on the runtime _HURTS_ it not helps it.

> I understand that GNAT FSF can be used for closed sources software, but
> again how many they are?

More than you can ever imagine. People are not posting their closed source use, but I can tell you that I've written more closed source Ada than public and so have most here.

> I'm not saying there is nothing, but as I said
> in my first post the GPL do cover the most majority of Ada projects
> needs.

That is _COMPLETELY_ false information and the same ridiculous argument I've heard from AdaCore trying to justify their shortsighted and harmful decision to GPL Virus the compiler and make it Shareware. They turned GNAT in to a toy.

The _reality_ is that the GPL compiler killed tons of __GPL__ projects and even more GMGPL projects.

Add to that the the GPL compiler has completely closed down all advocacy of Ada for the business world.

I'm going to make sure that changes :) hopefully with AdaCore, but even if without.

David Botton

[David Botton]

> I'm still not fully sold out on Gnoga and admit that (maybe) I'd be
> happier having choice of maintained/stable wx/Qt bindings for
> multi-platform GUI app.

Nothing truly is for everyone :)

However once I have the native clients (which could even be using Qt) to build executables with embedded browsers and Gnoga it will replace most need and be far more compatible across platforms that Qt or Gtk.

Plus I should have native client for Android and eventually iOS coming.

The Gnoga project beyond the framework and coming tools is to push Ada to the business world and that will include fixing the GNAT image and providing solid professional use Ada compilers (with or without AdaCore, the offer is on AdaCore's table now, we will see).

David Botton

[G.B.]

On 12.11.14 13:31, David Botton wrote:
> Add to that the the GPL compiler has completely closed down all advocacy of Ada for the business world.

Has the GPL branch produced an opportunity for other compiler makers?
I understand that they, too, would mostly require customers with
deeper pockets.

As a new customer, I would be

(1) needing an affordable compiler (Ada 2005, generics working)
(2) be fine with reduced support (cf. Apple, MS, etc.!)

and compiler vendors would need

(3) protection against freeloaders destroying their full support
business.

For (3) to work, have contracts include a clause that limits
customers who want to employ the affordable compiler in unjust
enrichment.

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 02:44:28 -0800, Hubert wrote:

> Part
> of what put me off two years ago was that Gtk wasn't working very well
> for me. The layout editor was messing up half my screen and looked not
> very user friendly,

That likely is because GTK's philosophy of dealing with the layout is
different from the traditional fixed-layout approach as known in Windows
GDI or Delphi.

GTK's idea (similar to TeX, BTW) is that the layout and all widgets must be
resizable by default. Which is IMO far more natural, at least for desktop
applications. One of the advantages is that the UI looks well in all screen
resolutions, provided designed correctly. However, it may require a bit
more mental efforts while designing the layout and some courage not to go
easy GLADE path.

--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

Hubert <herrd...@fumanchu.com> wrote:

> - If you're a little guy wanting to write a professional piece of
> software that you want to sell but it is not mission critical you are
> somewhat hanging in the air.

You should consider if Janus/Ada is relevant for you. It has some
limitations (for Microsoft Windows, only Ada 95), but it also comes with
what appears to be the most Ada friendly Ada GUI library available
(CLAW).

Greetings,

Jacob
--
Growing older is compulsory. Growing up isn't.

[David Botton]

> > Add to that the the GPL compiler has completely closed down all advocacy of Ada for the business world.
>
> Has the GPL branch produced an opportunity for other compiler makers?

The opportunity is there, however none have taken it. Partly because unfamiliarity with how to monetize Open Source projects, which in the case of most companies to date it is through selling "Support" not the code or executables as the product.

> I understand that they, too, would mostly require customers with
> deeper pockets.

It is not required. It is one market. The problem is that Ada vendors got lazy pursuing other venues since there was easy pickin' on the government cheese.

> As a new customer, I would be
>
> (1) needing an affordable compiler (Ada 2005, generics working)
> (2) be fine with reduced support (cf. Apple, MS, etc.!)

And you are the majority software developers even for Ada. I placed a business proposal in AdaCore's hands this last Monday to target your market. That proposal lays out how I plan on doing it with their being part or not.

> and compiler vendors would need
>
> (3) protection against freeloaders destroying their full support
> business.

No, what they need is a good product. AdaCore has that. No one that can afford their support walks away because of bad service. It was shortsighted thinking on their part to make their public version Shareware killing off all startups and serious business investments in Ada.

That is my goal to correct that. I'll be posting various aspects of the Gnoga business model soon, today I will be starting with its goals in another post.

> For (3) to work, have contracts include a clause that limits
> customers who want to employ the affordable compiler in unjust
> enrichment.

Unjust.... I am afraid that thinking is pre-the FSF movement, Gnat is built on GCC and has to be released GPL and the US taxpayer money which also required it be freely available, etc.

Would you say it is unjust that AdaCore is profiting on GCC?

AdaCore has _not been_ unjust, even though not super timely, they have given back to the FSF updates.

They are just outside the "spirit" and "intent" of the above and doing things to hurt Ada advocacy outside of their niche market.

Yes Stallman's position is that he wished he could put a GPL Virus in the compiler, but he states clearly he _didn't_ to advocate the use of Free software...

So let's see AdaCore is not encouraging Free software development OR Ada advocacy by having replaced the runtime on their public version.

What they did was create a Shareware version of GNAT that is intended to make others think that GNAT can not be used for professional use if not their Pro version.

I still am happy they still put out the GPL version despite that it is Shareware. Since without it they would have totally killed the Ada community not just maimed it.

I am certainly hoping they continue to put out a GPL version but I am pushing and _investing_ time and money with the hope they will match to go back to GMGPL and be part of the new movement to push Ada for general purpose application development.

David Botton

[David Botton]

> You should consider if Janus/Ada is relevant for you. It has some
> limitations (for Microsoft Windows, only Ada 95), but it also comes with
> what appears to be the most Ada friendly Ada GUI library available
> (CLAW).

CLAW and Janus, having used both are a _very_ nice top notch compiler and library combo.

However, GWindows and GNATCOM (http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnavi/) are more capable, very well maintained, open source, and easier to use and they work well with the windows FSF version of GNAT that comes with MinGW. You can use Ada 2005 and Ada 2012 with them as a result too.

Despite the lack of PR (not sure why they are not listed in the AdaIC.org list of packages for example. It is probably the largest ada framework used outside of those distributed today by AdaCore in the world.

When I created them they were placed under the GMGPL so you can enjoy using them in commercial products and I have and hundreds others do.

When I abandoned public Ada projects and advocacy ten years ago, _because_ those libraries are open source people like Gautier de Montmollin and others were willing to get involved and are even running the show on them now. So Open Source is a critical part of success today. You just have to be creative to know how to monetize it.

For application development MinGW is absolutely usable for professional development.

Same goes for other platform GNATs and you should have no qualms of using it for non-safety critical work.

David Botton

[David Botton]

Ok it is probably an exaggeration that GWindows / Gnatcom is the largest non AdaCore framework, some older stuff like Booch components etc probably still beat it. :)

David Botton

[Gour]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 04:38:34 -0800 (PST)
David Botton <da...@botton.com> wrote:

> However once I have the native clients (which could even be using Qt)
> to build executables with embedded browsers and Gnoga it will replace
> most need and be far more compatible across platforms that Qt or Gtk.

Well, I mentioned wx and Qt since both are suitable for desktop apps
offering rich set of widgets. Wx provides native look on Mac/Win -
nothing against GTK being 'native' on Linux, although there is work on
wxQt port as well. Otoh, Qt is also very rich toolkit and with good
support, even for monibile OS-es.

It seems that Gnoga *could* be able to be used instead. Moreover, let me
say that "It doesn't matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it
catches mice." ;)

> Plus I should have native client for Android and eventually iOS
> coming.

How would that go along with desktop clients?

> The Gnoga project beyond the framework and coming tools is to push
> Ada to the business world and that will include fixing the GNAT image
> and providing solid professional use Ada compilers (with or without
> AdaCore, the offer is on AdaCore's table now, we will see).

This is very noble attempt - Ada looks as capable as all other so called
'modern' languages both in terms of features and performance as well, so
if you succeed in your attempt, it will be great service for Ada
community. I'm very thankful to you for it!!


Sincerely,
Gour

--
One who is not disturbed in mind even amidst the threefold
miseries or elated when there is happiness, and who is free
from attachment, fear and anger, is called a sage of steady mind.

[David Botton]

> How would that go along with desktop clients?

Gnoga uses the same code base for desktop, web or mobile.

On desktop and android/ios instead of websockets it is possible to just get a direct hook in to the webkit/ie/gecko engine and talk direct. I have some concept code for webkit on Mac and ie and tested a few methods for gecko (XULRunner). It is a lower priority for the moment since can run on all those platforms with websockets now.

> Ada looks as capable as all other so called
> 'modern' languages both in terms of features and performance as well

I believe more so :)

David Botton

[Simon Wright]

There have been 412 downloads of the BCs from Sourceforge[1] in the year
to date, to my surprise.

The last open ticket was created in January 2007.

I must admit I haven't checked the BCs out with Ada 2012 ...

[1] http://sourceforge.net/p/booch95/

[jo...@peppermind.com]

> Yes Stallman's position is that he wished he could put a GPL Virus in the compiler

Have you talked to him personally about that? To me this seems like a pretty unfair statement, given that most if not all other FSF-backed programming languages do not encumber executables with the GPL.

The runtime engine should have been put under LGPL and wasn't (perhaps because LGPL didn't exist at that time?), but I would be surprised to hear that this was in any way RMS's decision.

[David Botton]

> Have you talked to him personally about that? To me this seems like a pretty unfair statement, given that most if not all other FSF-backed programming languages do not encumber executables with the GPL.

He wrote it on the FSF website and why he chose _not_ to GPL the runtimes.

> The runtime engine should have been put under LGPL and wasn't (perhaps because LGPL didn't exist at that time?), but I would be surprised to hear that this was in any way RMS's decision.

The FSF of the GNAT version is not encumbered and no, he would not do such a thing for the same reasons he wrote in general about not making the other GCC runtimes GPL. This was an AdaCore decision to Shareware a version of the compiler they put out publicly. Disclaimer: AdaCore have every right to do so as well.

David Botton

[David Botton]

> He wrote it on the FSF website and why he chose _not_ to GPL the runtimes.

This was quoted earlier I think:

"However, the FSF decided long ago to allow developers to use GCC's libraries to compile any program, regardless of its license. Developing nonfree software is not good for society, and we have no obligation to make it easier. We decided to permit this because forbidding it seemed likely to backfire, and because using small libraries to limit the use of GCC seemed like the tail wagging the dog."

So now for Ada this would not only be like the tail wagging the dog, but the toe jam wagging the dog.....


David Botton

[Randy Brukardt]

"Hubert" <herrd...@fumanchu.com> wrote in message
news:zTF8w.509165$No4.1...@fx19.iad...
...

> - If you're a little guy wanting to write a professional piece of software
> that you want to sell but it is not mission critical you are somewhat
> hanging in the air.

You could of course use a different, commercial Ada compiler, rather than
insisting on GNAT. At least Janus/Ada still costs $195 for the personal
version and $500 for the professional version. See www.rrsoftware.com.
(Disclaimer for new people here, I'm a co-founder and primary author of
Janus/Ada, so I'm a bit biased. :-)

> It is my opinion that what is missing is some sort of intermediate license
> for people who just want to write small scale applications and don't have
> the security requirements of big projects adn thus don't need the support

> that Adacore offers. Something like Turbo Pascal in the past or maybe even
> Visual Studio in the Personal Edition or so.

Aonix used to have an ObjectAda version like that, but I heard that they got
rid of it as they couldn't afford to support it. Janus/Ada is in that price
range as well, but I have to admit the same is true -- there isn't enough
business to justify working on it full-time. I have to do standardization
stuff and ACATS stuff to make ends meet.

> Personally I wouldn't mind paying a few 100$ right now for a license that
> would allow me to write closed source applications even if I get no
> support or just some way to report bugs which may or may not be fixed
> later.

See note about Janus/Ada above. ;-)

Randy Brukardt, R.R. Software, Inc.

[Randy Brukardt]

"Hubert" <herrd...@fumanchu.com> wrote in message

news:aSG8w.567817$Q61.2...@fx13.iad...
...

> The Gnoga project might be something to get people started though. Part of
> what put me off two years ago was that Gtk wasn't working very well for
> me. The layout editor was messing up half my screen and looked not very
> user friendly, so my conclusion was without a decent User Interface
> library it makes little sense for me to invest more time.

Unfortunately, if it is like most of David's other software, it won't work
on other Ada compilers. (That is a common problem, not really picking on
David here, a lot of supposedly Ada software is really GNAT software.) That
locks you into GNAT, and as you note, the costs for getting regular support
for GNAT are not really affordable.

One of the reasons we built Claw was to provide a Windows interface that
would work on any Ada 95 compiler for Windows, not just GNAT. That requires
displine and testing that most hobbyests wouldn't bother with.

Randy.

[Randy Brukardt]

"David Botton" <da...@botton.com> wrote in message
news:bb4c0cb4-65d3-4081...@googlegroups.com...

>> You should consider if Janus/Ada is relevant for you. It has some
>> limitations (for Microsoft Windows, only Ada 95), but it also comes with
>> what appears to be the most Ada friendly Ada GUI library available
>> (CLAW).

>CLAW and Janus, having used both are a _very_ nice top notch compiler and
>library combo.

>However, GWindows and GNATCOM (http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnavi/) are
>more capable, very well >maintained, open source, and easier to use and
>they work well with the windows FSF version of GNAT that comes >with MinGW.
>You can use Ada 2005 and Ada 2012 with them as a result too.

GWindows is still GNAT-only, right? If you want to use a different Ada
compiler, Claw is really your only option.

>Despite the lack of PR (not sure why they are not listed in the AdaIC.org
>list of packages for example.
>It is probably the largest ada framework used outside of those distributed
>today by AdaCore in the world.

The AdaIC page is a list of locations to look for free software, not a "list
of packages". GWindows is in libre (at least it used to be), so it doesn't
get a separate listing. The same is true Dmitry's various packages, Tero's
stuff, and so on.

The page really is just a listing of places to look, and it mainly is just a
list of links that we feed to the search engine. The intent was that the way
to find any package was to use the search engine
(http://www.adaic.org/ada-resources/ada-on-the-web/) to find possibilities.

(Besides, I thought AdaPower had such a list of packages. Which hasn't been
updated in forever... :-)

Randy.

[David Botton]

> Unfortunately, if it is like most of David's other software, it won't work
> on other Ada compilers

Not true. Janus is the only Windows compiler with an issue.

There was an ABI issue with using Janus that was too much effort for me to consider as a volunteer effort for a non Open Source compiler, however, GnatCOM was used on Aonix OpenAda and in Rational's Ada compiler. Privately I can give you a list of projects where I know it was used if you like not on GNAT.

I do not know if GWindows was used on other compilers, but other than the fact that I tend to use Object'Img there is nothing GNAT specific about the project. Since GNAT is the only open source compiler, it is the only one I choose to support until there are others.

> That requires displine and testing that most hobbyests wouldn't bother with.

I think that you confuse Open Source developers with "Hobbyest", that is usually not the case at all.

GnatCOM was a professional supported product by GNAT.

GWindows is used as a professional product by fortune 500 companies. I didn't go through with my plan 10 years ago with bringing Ada to the business sector because of license changes in GNAT to the public version and various other issues. Using FSF compilers in those days was not a big option.

There is nothing in Gnoga other than the use again of Object'Img preventing it from being used on Janus if it ever gets updated to Ada 2012. I'd be happy to help you do the work to replace AWS if needed with your own implementation of Websockets, etc.

I think that for many people they have not "figured" out how to make Open Source work to their advantage. It has in my career.

I'd be happy to talk to you privately any time about how to make Janus work in an Open Source environment provided you could open it. If you can't perhaps we can talk about options for a new Open Source compiler. I really liked Janus.

Your CLAW Open Source version came too late, if it was a year before I probably would have forked it and used it instead of created GWindows.

David Botton

[Britt]

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 5:47:24 PM UTC-5, Randy Brukardt wrote:

>
> You could of course use a different, commercial Ada compiler, rather than
> insisting on GNAT. At least Janus/Ada still costs $195 for the personal
> version and $500 for the professional version. See www.rrsoftware.com.

Randy,

I remember buying one of your early versions of of Janus Ada for $99. It might have been around 1989 or so. I might buy the current personal edition if I could be sure it would work on Windows 7 or 8.1.

Your website appears a bit dated with the references to Windows 95/NT and Rational Apex NT (which I used in the past before Rational killed it).

What is the status of Janus Ada and CLAW with regard to Windows 7 & 8?

- Britt

[David Botton]

> GWindows is still GNAT-only, right? If you want to use a different Ada
> compiler, Claw is really your only option.

Nope, would be a simple compile and change a few lines here and there for Object'Img.

It could be it has been used on other compilers, I didn't keep track. Others run the project now and may know.

Also since others maintain it now, not myself, there may be Ada 2005 and 2012 code already in it. Perhaps some day if there as actually another compiler for 2005 or 2012 we can see.

> The page really is just a listing of places to look, and it mainly is just a
> list of links that we feed to the search engine. The intent was that the way
> to find any package was to use the search engine
> (http://www.adaic.org/ada-resources/ada-on-the-web/) to find possibilities.

Thanks for the explantation.

> (Besides, I thought AdaPower had such a list of packages. Which hasn't been
> updated in forever... :-)

As I said in a few threads, I abandoned all public Ada projects 10 years ago with the start of Shareware GNAT. Now that there is a professional grade unencumbered open source compiler again (GNAT-FSF), I have taken an interest again to give Ada one more try. I think it is worth it, I assume you do to :)

I'd love to see you involved Randy on making the new push of Ada into the Application's market. You have more experience than many others in the Ada world in that space (most have Zero) and it would serve you well in it. Contact me by e-mail and we can talk more.

BTW Gnoga would work well with Janus although it would take some work to backport to Ada 95 and It would need a websocket implementation other than AWS which requires 2012.

Given that, yes AdaPower will be updated soon, using Gnoga actually :)

David Botton

[David Botton]

> Now they have no advertising costs, almost no development costs (what they have? a developer? two?) whatever they get from deep pockets is almost net profit.

Some recent upstream from AdaCore gcc/ada: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=history;f=gcc/ada

I may not agree with AdaCore's making a Shareware GNAT, because it harms potential use of Ada in markets they don't even start to understand, but they do good work and a lot of it.

I would like them for the benefit of Ada in all markets to consider other approaches as I presented to them. However if they don't my plan is to drive the GNAT-FSF compilers into those markets as the _Professional_ compilers they are. Which ultimately will still net them the "big fish" in those markets.

AdaCore is not "costing" on the results of the government funds if giving back to the FSF, only being very shortsighted.

David Boton

[David Botton]

> AdaCore is not "costing"

coasting

You get the point :)

[sbelm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 5:53:48 PM UTC-5, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>
> One of the reasons we built Claw was to provide a Windows interface that
> would work on any Ada 95 compiler for Windows, not just GNAT. That requires
> displine and testing that most hobbyests wouldn't bother with.
>
> Randy.

I was under the impression that any Win32 Ada program was by definition compiler-specific, since there is no standardized way to import stdcall subprograms?

-sb

[Randy Brukardt]

"Randy Brukardt" <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:m40odq$tdv$1...@loke.gir.dk...
...

> One of the reasons we built Claw was to provide a Windows interface that
> would work on any Ada 95 compiler for Windows, not just GNAT. That
> requires displine and testing that most hobbyests wouldn't bother with.

I should have noted (beyond spelling better in the above!) that the Ada 2012
pragma Profile (No_Implementation_Extensions) should help a great deal with
that. If that's put into a package, the majority of of
implementation-defined things would be identified. But it can't identify
everything.

Randy.

[Simon Clubley]

On 2014-11-12, Simon Wright <si...@pushface.org> wrote:
> Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>
>> PS: I've been around the Ada world long enough to remember the days
>> when GtkAda was GMGPL.
>
> "was" -> "stopped being" ?

That will work as well :-), but what I was trying to say was there was
a time when GtkAda was GMGPL and I chose to use it because it was GMGPL.

So much for posting last thing at night. :-)

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

[Randy Brukardt]

<sbelm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb27f98c-bf30-4287...@googlegroups.com...

I suppose that's formally true ("stdcall" not appearing in the RM), but
every Ada compiler for Windows that I know of uses "stdcall" for the
convention name. (Janus/Ada was the only one that didn't initially, and that
was easily solved. :-) So practically, that's not a portability problem. We
were able to put the differences into a handful of packages (mostly having
to do with linking pragmas).

Randy.

[Simon Clubley]

On 2014-11-12, jo...@peppermind.com <jo...@peppermind.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes Stallman's position is that he wished he could put a GPL Virus in the compiler
>
> Have you talked to him personally about that? To me this seems like
> a pretty unfair statement, given that most if not all other FSF-backed
> programming languages do not encumber executables with the GPL.
>

Actually, it's an accurate statement IIRC.

David's already posted a statement which I was unaware of and which backs
up my memory that in the very early days of gcc, RMS proposed that _any_
output from the gcc compiler would also be covered by the GPL.

IIRC, the backlash from that was so huge (by the standards of the time)
that RMS made it formally clear this wasn't, and would not be, the case.

[Randy Brukardt]

"David Botton" <da...@botton.com> wrote in message

news:19fa65d4-72c9-44ab...@googlegroups.com...

>> Unfortunately, if it is like most of David's other software, it won't
>> work
>> on other Ada compilers

>Not true. Janus is the only Windows compiler with an issue.

>There was an ABI issue with using Janus that was too much effort for me to
>consider as a
>volunteer effort for a non Open Source compiler, however, GnatCOM was used
>on
>Aonix OpenAda and in Rational's Ada compiler. Privately I can give you a
>list of projects
>where I know it was used if you like not on GNAT.

Didn't even remember GnatCOM. (With a name like that, why would anyone
expect it to work with any other Ada compiler? Marketing, as you mention, is
important.)

>I do not know if GWindows was used on other compilers, but other than the
>fact that
>I tend to use Object'Img there is nothing GNAT specific about the project.
>Since
>GNAT is the only open source compiler, it is the only one I choose to
>support until
>there are others.

Understand the latter. Have you ever tried profile
(No_Implementation_Extensions)? My experience is that people use a lot of
them without even being aware. (That's true for me, too, BTW).

My recollection is that GWindows depended on Unrestricted_Access (a huge
amount of GNAT software does), and that really only works with the GCC
runtime model. (The use of trampolines caused lots of problems on Windows;
AdaCore has finally gotten rid of most of those.)

>> That requires displine and testing that most hobbyests wouldn't bother
>> with.
>
>I think that you confuse Open Source developers with "Hobbyest", that is
>usually not the case at all.

Well, the vast majority of the Ada software posted here is not
professionally developed. The authors may be professional, but the software
is a side-line at best. That's what I was thinking of when I said the above.

>GnatCOM was a professional supported product by GNAT.

Right, but those sorts of products have even less incentive to work on other
compilers. They only really care about their own compiler.

>GWindows is used as a professional product by fortune 500 companies. I
>didn't go
>through with my plan 10 years ago with bringing Ada to the business sector
>because
>of license changes in GNAT to the public version and various other issues.
>Using FSF
>compilers in those days was not a big option.

It did however cannibalize our Claw business such that it made it
non-economic to put major work into it, and of course poliferated
interfaces. One of the major goals that we had for Claw was to make a
semi-standard interface for Windows so that everyone could use a single
interface.

>There is nothing in Gnoga other than the use again of Object'Img preventing
>it from
>being used on Janus if it ever gets updated to Ada 2012. I'd be happy to
>help you do
>the work to replace AWS if needed with your own implementation of
>Websockets, etc.

I'm not sure I have the time; I've spread myself too thin to do anything
well which is not helping Ada much. (And of course the "updating to Ada
2012" probably ought to have priority.) But I'll keep that in mind should
the need arise.

>I think that for many people they have not "figured" out how to make Open
>Source
>work to their advantage. It has in my career.
>
>I'd be happy to talk to you privately any time about how to make Janus work
>in an
>Open Source environment provided you could open it. If you can't perhaps we
>can
>talk about options for a new Open Source compiler. I really liked Janus.

I've seriously considered that, but I'm dubious that a business model based
on support alone would work (we always had problems selling support
contracts). Anyway, let's take this off line; my e-mail hasn't changed since
the last time we talked. :-)

>Your CLAW Open Source version came too late, if it was a year before I
>probably
>would have forked it and used it instead of created GWindows.

That's of course the big annoyance for me. We'd always intended to open
source the binding once the government obligation had been cleared. We
didn't do it immediately because I didn't want it forked until it was pretty
well tested (and the because the Builder had to be good enough to stand on
its own). Had you talked to me before starting GWindows, I'm pretty sure we
could have worked something out (given that there wasn't any major
difference between our plans and your plans).

But that's water under the dam at this point. I promise I'll forget about
Web-Claw. :-)

Randy.

[Hubert]

> Unfortunately, if it is like most of David's other software, it won't work
> on other Ada compilers. (That is a common problem, not really picking on
> David here, a lot of supposedly Ada software is really GNAT software.) That
> locks you into GNAT, and as you note, the costs for getting regular support
> for GNAT are not really affordable.

Let's face it: Gnat is the only compiler out there that has any chance
of making it to mainstream market. I contacted the other two vendors of
Ada compilers (forgot the names, I refer to them internally as the green
and the silver/blue website). they dont have prices on their sites, have
cool pics of fighter jets and only support up to Ada 95. I wanted to ask
for prices, evaluation version and I didn't even get a response, so I
guess unless you have "IBM" or "Pentagon" in your email domain, they
don't even read your email.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Randy Brukardt]

"David Botton" <da...@botton.com> wrote in message

news:c9535bc6-4e37-4e92...@googlegroups.com...

>> GWindows is still GNAT-only, right? If you want to use a different Ada
>> compiler, Claw is really your only option.
>
>Nope, would be a simple compile and change a few lines here and there for
>Object'Img.
>
>It could be it has been used on other compilers, I didn't keep track.
>Others run
>the project now and may know.

I remember that another vendor I know tried that and told me that it was
very difficult to get to work on their implementation. Dunno if that was an
older version or if it is still true. (It would surely be worse on Janus/Ada
with the weird System.Address size and the like.)

>Also since others maintain it now, not myself, there may be Ada 2005 and
>2012 code
>already in it. Perhaps some day if there as actually another compiler for
>2005 or 2012
>we can see.

You're sounding like Dewar. :-) The Rational/IBM compiler is a full
implementation of Ada 2005. Janus/Ada supports some Ada 2005 stuff, and will
support more when I get a round tuit, as well as some Ada 2012 stuff.

...

>> (Besides, I thought AdaPower had such a list of packages. Which hasn't
>> been
>> updated in forever... :-)
>
>As I said in a few threads, I abandoned all public Ada projects 10 years
>ago with the
>start of Shareware GNAT. Now that there is a professional grade
>unencumbered open
>source compiler again (GNAT-FSF), I have taken an interest again to give
>Ada one
>more try. I think it is worth it, I assume you do to :)
>
>I'd love to see you involved Randy on making the new push of Ada into the
>Application's market. You have more experience than many others in the Ada
>world in that space (most have Zero) and it would serve you well in it.
>Contact
>me by e-mail and we can talk more.

Write me with what you have in mind.

>BTW Gnoga would work well with Janus although it would take some work to
>backport to Ada 95 and It would need a websocket implementation other than
>AWS which requires 2012.

Well, Ada 95 + 10% of Ada 2005. Not sure what "websocket" you are talking
about here. NC.Sockets is a regular, portable sockets implementation that
works on both Windows and Linux. ("NC" ==> "Not Claw", it's based on the
Claw sockets implementation, but with the Windows-specific stuff filed off.
Tero Koskinen built a Linux version which I've been using for that part.
It's BSD-licensed. I need to finish that up one of these days, as the Ada
search engine and Trash-finder both depend on it, and I need to port them
from our obsolete W2K server to the newish Linux server.)

>Given that, yes AdaPower will be updated soon, using Gnoga actually :)

Randy.

[Hubert]

Ok, One was GreenHills and the other was Atego, I looked them up

[Randy Brukardt]

"Britt" <britt.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1af12fe7-ddd9-4eec...@googlegroups.com...

> On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 5:47:24 PM UTC-5, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>
>>
>> You could of course use a different, commercial Ada compiler, rather than
>> insisting on GNAT. At least Janus/Ada still costs $195 for the personal
>> version and $500 for the professional version. See www.rrsoftware.com.
>
> Randy,
>
> I remember buying one of your early versions of of Janus Ada for $99. It
> might have been around 1989 or so. I might buy the current personal
> edition if I could be sure it would work on Windows 7 or 8.1.
>
> Your website appears a bit dated with the references to Windows 95/NT and
> Rational Apex NT
>(which I used in the past before Rational killed it).

I've been holding off on updating the website until all of the Windows 7
issues are cleared.

> What is the status of Janus Ada and CLAW with regard to Windows 7 & 8?

Windows 8 == Vista to me; I'm waiting for Windows 10 as a system that tried
to make the desktop a second-class citizen is near-worthless for
programming. So no testing there. (Tom Moran reported that everything works
the same there as it does on Windows 7; I don't think there are any
additional issues, but as I said, I didn't try them.)

As far as Windows 7 goes, there are a few minor problems that have so far
kept the compiler in beta. The main one is that the uninstaller doesn't work
(I can't seem to convince Windows that it should have the permissions to
uninstall, even when run explicitly as an administrator). The minor one
(considering that it is obsolete even if it works) is that the GUI
programming environment doesn't work at all; you'd have to use some other
editor. (Most people prefer to do that anyway, but it really ought to work;
to do that, it will have to be totally replaced, something I don't have time
for right now.)

The Claw binding and Claw programs work on Windows 7, so far as I can tell
via testing. The Claw Builder comes up with a white screen for some reason
on Windows 7, so it isn't usable right now on that system. (I'm guessing
that there is a deadlock situation in the way Claw writes the overlay, but
it will take some intensive testing to figure out the cause.) A more minor
problem is that the help files have to be found manually every time you open
them, for some reason Windows 7 can't remember where they are.

Anyway, the beta works on Windows 7, with some glitches. Once the glitches
are gone, I'll update the web site, too.

Randy.

[David Botton]

> Write me with what you have in mind.

I will be in touch soon.

> Not sure what "websocket" you are talking

Is part of HTML5, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebSocket

David Botton

[Shark8]

On 12-Nov-14 19:10, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>
> Anyway, the beta works on Windows 7, with some glitches. Once the glitches
> are gone, I'll update the web site, too.
>

Good to hear.

[Harry Bolger]

On 2014-11-13, Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>
> David's already posted a statement which I was unaware of and which backs
> up my memory that in the very early days of gcc, RMS proposed that _any_
> output from the gcc compiler would also be covered by the GPL.
>
> IIRC, the backlash from that was so huge (by the standards of the time)
> that RMS made it formally clear this wasn't, and would not be, the case.

That's now. I suspect once world domination draws near they will pull that
trick out of their sleeve and it will be too late for the lemmings to do
anything about it.

Harry

[George Curioso]

On 2014-11-12, Randy Brukardt <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote:

> You could of course use a different, commercial Ada compiler, rather than
> insisting on GNAT. At least Janus/Ada still costs $195 for the personal
> version and $500 for the professional version. See www.rrsoftware.com.
> (Disclaimer for new people here, I'm a co-founder and primary author of
> Janus/Ada, so I'm a bit biased. :-)

It's hard to tell from your website exactly which *NIX are supported. If you
could clarify that it might be helpful. Many people are no longer using
Windows and or prefer coding on UNIX or UNIX-like platforms as I'm sure you know.

Will it run on Linux, Solaris (x86 or SPARC), FreeBSD, etc? 32 bits or 64? I
downloaded your test executables (I think they were old a.out) years ago and
I couldn't get them to work on anything I had running at the time.

>> Personally I wouldn't mind paying a few 100$ right now for a license that
>> would allow me to write closed source applications even if I get no
>> support or just some way to report bugs which may or may not be fixed
>> later.
>
> See note about Janus/Ada above. ;-)

Please clarify exactly what platforms and Ada versions are supported. I've
heard (read) good things about your toolchain but your website doesn't help ;-)

George

[Luther Bogart]

On 2014-11-13, Hubert <herrd...@fumanchu.com> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, if it is like most of David's other software, it won't work
>> on other Ada compilers. (That is a common problem, not really picking on
>> David here, a lot of supposedly Ada software is really GNAT software.) That
>> locks you into GNAT, and as you note, the costs for getting regular support
>> for GNAT are not really affordable.
>
> Let's face it: Gnat is the only compiler out there that has any chance
> of making it to mainstream market. I contacted the other two vendors of
> Ada compilers (forgot the names, I refer to them internally as the green
> and the silver/blue website). they dont have prices on their sites, have
> cool pics of fighter jets and only support up to Ada 95. I wanted to ask
> for prices, evaluation version and I didn't even get a response, so I
> guess unless you have "IBM" or "Pentagon" in your email domain, they
> don't even read your email.

I have had similar experiences and said so here over the years. I even
called and got the guy to laugh at me over the phone for the price of a long
distance call (no distributor here). But they can't sell it to IBM since IBM
already has Ada they bought from Rational. IBM previously sold off their Ada
370 version to a company in Virginia. Those people are a lot more personable
(and reasonable) but you still have to take out a second mortgage if you
want to use Ada.

Anyway I don't agree with you thaht GNAT can make it in the mainstream
market if you mean the real Ada market. There are already a few companies in
that space and they'll stay there until the business disappears.

As far as hobbyist, personal, or small professional developer goes there
shouldn't be any reason why gcc-Ada can't be just like gcc and gfortran,
without an encumbered runtime. People are selling stuff written in gcc all
the time and they don't have to open source it.

Luther

[Luther Bogart]

On 2014-11-13, Luther Bogart <playi...@morocco.com> wrote:
> On 2014-11-13, Hubert <herrd...@fumanchu.com> wrote:

>> Let's face it: Gnat is the only compiler out there that has any chance
>> of making it to mainstream market. I contacted the other two vendors of
>> Ada compilers (forgot the names, I refer to them internally as the green
>> and the silver/blue website). they dont have prices on their sites, have
>> cool pics of fighter jets and only support up to Ada 95. I wanted to ask
>> for prices, evaluation version and I didn't even get a response, so I
>> guess unless you have "IBM" or "Pentagon" in your email domain, they
>> don't even read your email.
>

I meant to write

Anyway I don't agree with you that GNAT "is the only compiler out there
that has any chance of making it to the mainstream market" since there
already 4 or 5 significant players in that business space.

Obviously GNAT made it already ;-) They are just not motivated to sell
licenses to hobbyists or small startup-type development ventures.

Luther

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 13.11.14 02:29, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> I should have noted (beyond spelling better in the above!) that the Ada 2012
> pragma Profile (No_Implementation_Extensions) should help a great deal with
> that. If that's put into a package,

A test case program is another place I sometimes use to make
sure the language used stays Ada. In particular, the earlier (Ada 95)

No_Implementation_{Attributes|Pragmas}

restriction identifiers serve these cases well.

[Pete Ballmer]

On 2014-11-12, Randy Brukardt <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote:

> Unfortunately, if it is like most of David's other software, it won't work
> on other Ada compilers. (That is a common problem, not really picking on
> David here, a lot of supposedly Ada software is really GNAT software.) That
> locks you into GNAT, and as you note, the costs for getting regular support
> for GNAT are not really affordable.

This is an issue with all of FSF's proprietary stuff generally not just
Ada. What percentage of "C" code written for Linux and NUXI is actually
really C rather than gcc? Not very much. It's bad for the ecosystem when
code only compiles under one toolchain. FSF knows that and that's why they
create all these extensinons. It's just another smarter form of vendor
lock-in and it's hard to understand why people accept this.

It takes a lot of discipline and expense to write portable code and all the
gxx stuff makes it tempting to do otherwise. You _will_ be fsfimilated!

Peter

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 13.11.14 02:49, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> My recollection is that GWindows depended on Unrestricted_Access (a huge
> amount of GNAT software does), and that really only works with the GCC
> runtime model.

I understand ICC's compiler has (something like) Unrestricted_Access?

(But maybe some uses of 'Unrestricted_Access may be supplanted now
with plain access subprogram parameters of Ada 2005.)

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 13.11.14 08:40, Harry Bolger wrote:
> That's now. I suspect once world domination draws near they will pull that
> trick out of their sleeve and it will be too late for the lemmings to do
> anything about it.

You're joking, right?

[Harry Bolger]

About what? Stalemate has already acknowledged he wants this. He just
couldn't shove it down people's throats far enough at that time. Later on
when Linux finishes blotting out all the other desktop and low-end server OS
and all the other toolchains have disappeared people will have to swallow
whatever the FSF tells them and like it, sir! All that proprietary gcc code
they wrote over the past twenty years thinking it was C won't compile or run
on anything else and they'll be locked in.

Is this such a difficult proposition for you?

Harry

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 13.11.14 09:03, Pete Ballmer wrote:
> It's just another smarter form of vendor
> lock-in and it's hard to understand why people accept this.

Other than simply ignorance and imitation, accepting language
extensions could well be a direct consequence of how
consultancy works, I think, and of how GTD management works.
There are rewards:

Sentences about language involving "technically superior", "long term",
"portable", etc, have no momentary effect. They don't get things done,
now. They do not help "getting things re-done" forever, too, if
software may become finished, with no control over profitable sequels.
Just an observation.

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 13.11.14 09:41, Harry Bolger wrote:
> On 2014-11-13, Georg Bauhaus <bau...@futureapps.invalid> wrote:
>> On 13.11.14 08:40, Harry Bolger wrote:
>>> That's now. I suspect once world domination draws near they will pull that
>>> trick out of their sleeve and it will be too late for the lemmings to do
>>> anything about it.
>>
>> You're joking, right?
>>
>
> About what? Stalemate has already acknowledged he wants this. He just
> couldn't shove it down people's throats far enough at that time.

Right. And a single citizen cannot survive a move against most of his
supporters, including commercial supporters like Redhat or Oracle or
AdaCore, who make a living in the enterprise and military spaces.
The powers insinuated are even less if there is the prospect of moving
towards differently licensed open source LLVM. I don't think the FSF
is sufficiently suicidal for that.

> All that proprietary gcc code
> they wrote over the past twenty years thinking it was C won't compile or run
> on anything else and they'll be locked in.

I recall that many GNU-isms are well supported by major C compilers,
including Intel, and also that the same argument could apply in reverse
when trying to port C or Fortran away form Intel-isms.

Apple, OTOH, have been doing exactly what you have outlined, a couple
of times, and they are doing well.

> Is this such a difficult proposition for you?

Not difficult to decipher as a fine specimen of FUD, by all standards
I can just now think of. For example, completeness.

[Georg Bauhaus]

On 13.11.14 09:03, Pete Ballmer wrote:

> It's just another smarter form of vendor
> lock-in and it's hard to understand why people accept this.

And BTW, this is how Ada started! Someone did no longer want
to accept his organization being locked-in to over 400 vendors.

History repeating?

[Gour]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 20:10:39 -0600
"Randy Brukardt" <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote:

> Windows 8 == Vista to me; I'm waiting for Windows 10 as a system that
> tried to make the desktop a second-class citizen is near-worthless
> for programming. So no testing there.

What about Linux (x86_64) and someone wanting to write multi-platform
open-source desktop app?


Sincerely,
Gour


--
You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you
are not entitled to the fruits of action. Never consider
yourself the cause of the results of your activities,
and never be attached to not doing your duty.

[Maciej Sobczak]

> About what? Stalemate has already acknowledged he wants this. He just
> couldn't shove it down people's throats far enough at that time. Later on
> when Linux finishes blotting out all the other desktop and low-end server OS
> and all the other toolchains have disappeared people will have to swallow
> whatever the FSF tells them and like it, sir!

By "all the other toolchains" you mean also llvm? Because as far as I know, this toolchain is actually starting to push gcc out of the picture (think FreeBSD, Apple). So, don't worry about the world dominance of gcc and possible tricks that might follow.

--
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com

[Tero Koskinen]

Too bad, right now the pragma does not work in practice :)

Janus/Ada [for Ada 95/07] - Version 3.1.2b (Windows NT 386)
...
Input File Is C:\work\ahven\src\AHVEN.ADS
#
In File C:\work\ahven\src\AHVEN.ADS at line 18
--------------
17:
18: pragma Profile (No_Implementation_Extensions);
---------------^
*WARNING* Unknown pragma (6.5.2)


ICC Ada Compiler [v9.0.57 Jan 24, 2014] Target x86 Win32
Compiling c:/work/ahven/src/ahven.ads
"ahven.ads", line 18: Warning: Ignored pragma: Profile.

(Yes, I am using Ada 95/2005/2007 compilers, but it is not fair to tease
people with features implemented only in one compiler.)

Yours,
Tero

[Tero Koskinen]

13.11.2014 3:54, Hubert wrote:
>> Unfortunately, if it is like most of David's other software, it won't
>> work
>> on other Ada compilers. (That is a common problem, not really picking on
>> David here, a lot of supposedly Ada software is really GNAT software.)
>> That
>> locks you into GNAT, and as you note, the costs for getting regular
>> support
>> for GNAT are not really affordable.
>
> Let's face it: Gnat is the only compiler out there that has any chance
> of making it to mainstream market. I contacted the other two vendors of
> Ada compilers (forgot the names, I refer to them internally as the green
> and the silver/blue website). they dont have prices on their sites, have
> cool pics of fighter jets and only support up to Ada 95. I wanted to ask
> for prices, evaluation version and I didn't even get a response, so I
> guess unless you have "IBM" or "Pentagon" in your email domain, they
> don't even read your email.

...

> Ok, One was GreenHills and the other was Atego, I looked them up

I have managed to contact Atego sales people in Europe about
a year ago. But I admit, it was somewhat hard to do. I had to
pester HR persons (via email) to find me a sales guy who was
answering to his emails.

But in the end, I found two (one of them was vice-president of
sales department iirc), plus one software engineer.

I was even able to get a quote from them for ObjectAda (2005 version).

Otherwise their price was "ok", but
1) They license their compiler only for a year at time. After year
is over, you need to renew the license or you cannot use the compiler
anymore.
2) They only deal with other companies. They don't have procedures
to sell (or give) compilers to invidual people.

Also, I don't know has the situation changed after the latest merger.

Yours,
Tero

[Tero Koskinen]

13.11.2014 1:23, Britt wrote:
> What is the status of Janus Ada and CLAW with regard to Windows 7 & 8?

Janus/Ada works on 64-bit Windows 8.1. There are some quirks with
filenames (they seem to be partially case sensitive), but otherwise
everything is ok. (I regularly test my Ada software on Windows 8.1
with Janus/Ada.)

On 64-bit Windows 7 everything works fine.

http://build.ada-language.com/view/JanusAda/ provides build logs
for some of my Ada packages compiled on Windows 7.

Yours,
Tero

[Peter Chapin]

I agree with this. It seems like in some circles gcc is seen as
yesterday's technology. I'd worry more about LLVM taking over the world.

Peter

[David Botton]

> I agree with this. It seems like in some circles gcc is seen as
> yesterday's technology. I'd worry more about LLVM taking over the world.

About time someone get the fire to Finish the work already started (and was working) for porting the GNAT front end to LLVM or write a new one :)

I'm a bit busy ;) I have a good excuse.

David Botton

[Randy Brukardt]

"Georg Bauhaus" <bau...@futureapps.invalid> wrote in message
news:m41pge$si1$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 13.11.14 02:49, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>> My recollection is that GWindows depended on Unrestricted_Access (a huge
>> amount of GNAT software does), and that really only works with the GCC
>> runtime model.
>
> I understand ICC's compiler has (something like) Unrestricted_Access?

My recollection was that ICC has it, but it only works in limited
circumstances -- they couldn't implement the entire thing as supported by
GNAT.

> (But maybe some uses of 'Unrestricted_Access may be supplanted now
> with plain access subprogram parameters of Ada 2005.)

Right, there is a similarity (not 100%). For Janus/Ada, such parameters
would be (if I ever got around to implementing them), a record containing
roughly 20 words of memory to carry the call state. A bit expensive to
initialize, but it would work (generic formal subprograms have a similar
implementation, but there the memory is associated with the instance rather
than the individual actual subprogram parameter).

I recall Adam suggesting that some special sort of named
access-to-subprogram type be defined with similar characteristics to the
anonymous access-to-subprogram. Such a thing could be made to work, while
the bare pointer used for normal access-to-subprogram types would not work.
But of course it would be susceptible to dangling pointers, and won't
(usually) be compatible with C.

Randy.


Randy.