Ada: yes or no?

Ken Moffat ken at kenmoffat.uklinux.net
Fri May 17 14:28:22 PDT 2002


It is widely believed that on Fri, 17 May 2002, Gareth Jones wrote:

> 
> The main reason Ada is not needed seems to be that there was no standard
> Ada compiler until now.  If most distributions switch to GCC 3.1, assuming
> most install *all* of GCC, then there will indeed be a standard compiler for
> Ada, and gradually more programs will be written in it.
> 
> Unless you know you will never install anything requiring Ada it seems
> illogical not to install the compiler.  LFS is not just about building a base
> system for the sake of it, it's about building a base system we can expand to
> suit our needs.  Sooner or later many of us will need Ada.
> 
 From memory, RedHat and distros derived from it install c and c++. I
don't recall a lot of complaints that Fortran isn't installed, so I don't
agree with your assumption about what distros will do.

 If you've got a state of the art machine, go ahead and install Ada just
in case. But I bet even Gerard's P4 will notice the extra time to compile
gcc.

 I agree with Nic's suggestions.

Ken

-- 
Listen to others, even to the dull and ignorant;
     for you too may be a Manager some day.
-- from the BFOH Desidoreplicator.

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list