home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: newsfeed.internetmci.com!panix!cmcl2!news!schonberg!dewar
- From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: C/C++ knocks the crap out of Ada
- Date: 5 Mar 1996 15:43:56 -0500
- Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
- Message-ID: <dewar.826058336@schonberg>
- References: <JSA.96Feb16135027@organon.com> <1996Feb22.005518.13396@leeweyr.sccsi.com> <4gvrffINNlqo@anvil.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> <4h4j31$1ga3@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> <4h5cbcINNahr@anvil.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> <4h7t4u$u07@mailer.mda.ca>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: schonberg.cs.nyu.edu
- X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 (NOV)
-
- Kazimir says
-
- ": There is a GNU Ada compiler, too---is _that_ 100% compliant with the standards"
-
- That's odd, obviously of course he has no idea what he is talkin about :-)
-
- For the record, GNAT (which is what you mean by the GNU Ada Compiler) though
- not 100% compliant with the standard (no compiler can likely claim 100%
- compliance) is highly compliant and has successfuly passed the stringent
- ACVC validation suite (to be fair the current suite is more stringent in
- some places than others!) Furthermore part of this validation involvces
- signing a DOC that states there are no deliberate extensions.
-
- I think you were assuming that because GNU C is an extended dialiect of
- C, that GNU Ada must take the same attitude.
-
- This just goes to show that assumptions and guesses are not as useful
- as facts.
-
- As a measure of compliance, I would say that GNAT comes closer complying to
- the standard thmost ANSI C compilers I havce used!
-
-