karl@grebyn.com (Karl A. Nyberg) (08/10/90)
If we're going to have to play compiler/vendor bashing here... In article <1990Aug9.191734.11633@sctc.com> endrizzi@sctc.com (Michael Endrizzi ) writes: >I have been using VADS Version 5 Unix self-hosting for 7 months now and >I cannot take it anymore. Any self-hosted compiler in particular? Brand of computer, version of operating system, more accurate revision level of compiler? I'll give you a dollar for it if you want to sell... :-) >I am up to my eyeballs in "internal errors" >,"database inconsistency","segmentation error,core dump","out of memory". I presume you followed the documentation (and Walt Penny's recent e-mail) and have submitted these as reports. Of course, if you have enjoyed masochism for the past seven months, why start complaining now... >4 of us used DEC VMS Ada version 1!!! for 1 and half years and I can >only remember about 4 or 5 errors. Myself in 7 months has found more >errors then that in a Version 5 compiler!!! Have you tried taking the code you're writing now, probably much more complicated, with more extensive generics, representation specs, etc. and run it against that version 1 compiler? There's no telling how old the compiler you're using is, or whether it is current for the operating system you're running on. >I am at the point of >bypassing the recompile facilities and building my own Unix scripts >for recompiling and linking. I did that years ago. It helps me out when I port to the PC, although I did see that Meridian's latest summer release has a recompilation facility. As I start to gain confidence in the accurate execution of these things, I'll use them. Until then, I send in bug reports. >So tell me, am I the only one??? No. But it's not the only compiler. I have found this true with numerous compilers. >Tell me I'm not going insane, I'm >almost regretting moving from C to Ada (now that's desperate). ... or language. Surprise, surprise - I even have to work around bugs in the GNU cc. This is from mail years (literally ago) when I was actually semi-moderating info-ada and the same sort of thing started up with TeleSoft. We here at TeleSoft whole-heartedly agree with your posting that asked people NOT to submit compiler questions/results/complaints over info-ada [/comp.lang.ada]. Hopefully, people will follow this wonderful advice and save both your time and theirs. The correct route to take IS directly to the vendor. Like most folks out there, we can be reached by email. If you've got ARPAnet connections, then mailing to [address deleted for fear it is too old - can somebody at TeleSoft fill in?] Of course, the telephone has worked for many satisfied customers. Anyone with a product should have the vendor's phone number somewhere in the documentation. Ours is (619)457-2700. Once again, thanks for encouraging the readers of info-ada to make proper use of the channels that vendors have built to care for their user's in the most effective way possible. -- Karl -- Karl A. Nyberg karl@grebyn.com Post Office Box 497 Grebyn Corporation Vienna, VA 22183-0497 USA +1-703-281-2194 Disclaimer: Meridian, TeleSoft and Verdix (among others) buy a lot of my products and services at market rates. Have you gotten YOUR own copy of the Annotated Ada Reference Manual from YOUR compiler vendor yet? :-)
endrizzi@sctc.com (Michael Endrizzi ) (08/10/90)
karl@grebyn.com (Karl A. Nyberg) writes: >If we're going to have to play compiler/vendor bashing here... >In article <1990Aug9.191734.11633@sctc.com> endrizzi@sctc.com (Michael Endrizzi ) writes: >>I have been using VADS Version 5 Unix self-hosting for 7 months now and >>I cannot take it anymore. >Any self-hosted compiler in particular? Brand of computer, version of >operating system, more accurate revision level of compiler? I'll give you a >dollar for it if you want to sell... :-) Version 5 Verdix, Sun Unix 4.0.3 running on Sun 3/60. Reports about Version 6 are not very encouraging. >masochism for the past seven months, why start complaining now... Because as it turns out I am not the only one. My request for information was answered by others that are experiencing the same level of difficulties. And it's not just Verdix, several others were mentioned (I won't name them because I did not use them). >No. But it's not the only compiler. I have found this true with numerous >compilers. Alsys just called me. They were very diplomatic about commenting on other compiler vendors simply stating that "our compiler will speak for itself". We'll see. >... or language. Surprise, surprise - I even have to work around bugs in >the GNU cc. We use GNU cc extensively and have very very few problems. It's an apples and oranges game because Ada is suck a complex language. >This is from mail years (literally ago) when I was actually semi-moderating >info-ada and the same sort of thing started up with TeleSoft. > We here at TeleSoft whole-heartedly agree with your posting that > asked people NOT to submit compiler questions/results/complaints > over info-ada [/comp.lang.ada]. Hopefully, people will follow this > wonderful advice and save both your time and theirs. > [ stuff is deleted ] This is BS. The net is a public bulletin board and ANY manufacture should be PROUD to have their product reviewed in a public forum. Other forums (rec.audio,rec.video,rec.cars(??),comp.database) publicly bash and praise products, why can't a piece of software??? Only manufacturers who are trying protect their backsides would make such a statement as above. Reminds me of GM trying to fending off the Japanese by hiding their dirty laundry underneath marketing blitz's and voluntary restraints. In the end, the truth stands, and quality products are rewarded by the marketplace. I do submit bug reports. If any of the problems I am experiencing are my fault, PLEASE let me know so I can fix it. Maybe others went through the same problems and resolved it. By posting complaints, Verdix is not the only one with it's neck on the line. What if the problems I am complaining about are my fault?? Makes me look pretty stupid, too. However, in this case others have stated that they too are having similar problems. Dreez ================================================================= ================================================================= Michael J. Endrizzi Secure Computing Technology Corp. 1210 W. County Road E #100 Arden Hills, Mn. 55112 endrizzi@sctc.com (612) 482-7425 *Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are not of my employer but of the American people. ================================================================= =================================================================
rlk@telesoft.com (Bob Kitzberger @sation) (08/12/90)
In article <21105@grebyn.com>, karl@grebyn.com (Karl A. Nyberg) writes: > > This is from mail years (literally ago) when I was actually semi-moderating > info-ada and the same sort of thing started up with TeleSoft. > > [...] > The correct route to take IS directly to the vendor. Like most > folks out there, we can be reached by email. If you've got ARPAnet > connections, then mailing to [address deleted for fear it is too old > - can somebody at TeleSoft fill in?] The correct email address is support@telesoft.com. Phone 619/457-2700. .Bob. -- Bob Kitzberger Internet : rlk@telesoft.com TeleSoft uucp : ...!ucsd.ucsd.edu!telesoft!rlk 5959 Cornerstone Court West San Diego, CA 92121-9891 "There's too much caffeine in your bloodstream..." (619) 457-2700 x163 -- The Smiths ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vladimir@prosper (Vladimir G. Ivanovic) (08/14/90)
You know, at a certain point one has to decide, "Do I prefer to be right, or do I prefer to be effective?" I think that what Karl is saying (pardon me if I put words into his mouth), is if you want to be effective, G O D I R E C T L Y T O T H E V E N D O R What part of the previous line don't you understand? -- Vladimir
endrizzi@sctc.com (Michael Endrizzi ) (08/14/90)
vladimir@prosper (Vladimir G. Ivanovic) writes: > G O D I R E C T L Y T O T H E V E N D O R >What part of the previous line don't you understand? I have gone to the vendor. So has MANY!!! other people that have written me from all over the world. Verdix Users are on Release 6 and it is not getting any better. Our projects/jobs are dependant on tools that DON"T WORK. What do you suggest, that we wait for Release 1019. Many other news groups use this media to exchange information on manufacturers. Why is comp.lang.ada so special??? No one is preventing the manufacturers from defending their product. What is YOUR vested interest?? If you don't like the discussion, then hit the 'n' key and continue to mind your own business. What part of the previous paragraph don't you understand? Dreez ================================================================= ================================================================= Michael J. Endrizzi Secure Computing Technology Corp. 1210 W. County Road E #100 Arden Hills, Mn. 55112 endrizzi@sctc.com (612) 482-7425 *Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are not of my employer but of the American people. ================================================================= =================================================================
tap@SRC.Honeywell.COM (Thomas A Peterson) (08/14/90)
=You know, at a certain point one has to decide, "Do I prefer to be right, or =do I prefer to be effective?" I think that what Karl is saying (pardon me if =I put words into his mouth), is if you want to be effective, = = G O D I R E C T L Y T O T H E V E N D O R = =What part of the previous line don't you understand? Some of us are tired of going to the vendor. We wish to notify other users about the problems we have been experiencing and force the vendor to fix the compiler via this coercive action. I am certain that my current Ada vendor would much rather port their system to a new platform to get yet more unsuspecting customers than fix the mistakes that exist in the current compiler. Tom
johnt@mead.UUCP (John Townsend) (08/14/90)
vladimir@prosper (Vladimir G. Ivanovic) writes: > G O D I R E C T L Y T O T H E V E N D O R >What part of the previous line don't you understand? and may I add... A N D T H E M A R K E T P L A C E. Verdix (and nobody else either) is not going to make an expensive change to their compiler just because one user (who has already paid for the product anyway) has a problem. They have too many other important revenue-producing jobs to do that. From my experience as a compiler validator for the Language Control Facility at WPAFB, it was obvious that if a vendor wanted to cheat on a validation, it would be disgustingly easy. The real "validation" of compilers is done by the marketplace, and you vote with your dollars (or pounds, or marks, or francs, or rubles ;) or whatever). Granted, going public with a gripe without going to the vendor is downright discourteous. Nevertheless, to be truly "effective" in a free market, you may need to include leverage in your tools. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Townsend (johnt@mead.UUCP) c/o Mead Data Central 9443 Springboro Pike P.O. Box 933 Dayton, Ohio, 45401 (513) 865-7250 "Any opinions expressed herein are my own, and not necessarily those of MDC." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ytlat@kk62.ericsson.se (Lennart AtternaesTT/UO) (08/15/90)
vladimir@prosper (Vladimir G. Ivanovic) writes: >You know, at a certain point one has to decide, "Do I prefer to be right, or >do I prefer to be effective?" I think that what Karl is saying (pardon me if >I put words into his mouth), is if you want to be effective, > G O D I R E C T L Y T O T H E V E N D O R >What part of the previous line don't you understand? This is insulting. You have to realize that there are people out here that have serious problems that cost their employer a lot of money. Of course we have sent reports to the vendor, however, my employer would rather buy a more expensive compiler rather than having the employees working part time for the Verdix cooperation debugging their software. If there aren't any better Ada compilers we of course have to change back to fortran (or C if we dare changing language one more time). -- Lennart Atternaes Ericsson Telecom AB Dep. KK/ETX/TT/UO Telephone Fax S-126 25 STOCKHOLM Nat 08-7197564 Nat 08-7196000, 7080 SWEDEN Int +46 8 7197564 Int +46 8 7196000, 7080 E-mail: ytlat@kk.ericsson.se
ryer@inmet.inmet.com (08/15/90)
I truly enjoy compiler bashing. Even if its my own (Intermetrics) compiler, I enjoy it if it's well done. Customer service, reliability, and continuous improvement are very important in compiler selection. You cannot find out about it from the vendor. Though they may not deliberately lie, they will certainly have blind spots regarding their own faults. Discussion on the net is one reasonable source of independent assessment of vendor support. However, I note that nearly all the bashing has been directed at Verdix. To the best of my knowledge, they are not the worst, and none of the other vendors are perfect. So, my plea is for some bashing of other compilers as well. Lets get ALL the dirt out in the open. Mike Ryer Intermetrics
westley@corsair.uucp (Terry J. Westley) (08/16/90)
In article <20600057@inmet> ryer@inmet.inmet.com writes: >I truly enjoy compiler bashing. Even if its my own (Intermetrics) compiler, >I enjoy it if it's well done. > >Mike Ryer >Intermetrics I come not to bury Verdix, but to praise them. Instead of compiler bashing, I would like to put in a word for Verdix based on my recent experience. Disclaimer: I don't work for, sell for, or otherwise have an interest in Verdix. I did once own 100 shares of stock, but sold it at a loss about a year ago because it was such a dog. Setting the stage: We are building a distributed, real-time radar simulation. It will run on approx. 35 Sun 4s and 35 Motorola 68030 CPU cards (MVME147) with Ethernet and TCP/IP. COCOMO said it would be around 125K LOC. I believe it will come in closer to 300K. Most of the program is currently in Detail Design (preparing SDDs for you 2167A fans). My group is ahead of this schedule, coding and testing system services such as network communications, terminal I/O, event logging, etc. All of these services have portions which are dependent on the OS and hardware. Our choice for compiler vendor primarily revolved around support for the chosen platforms, especially in the real-time executive and networking software support. We gave most serious consideration to integrations of 1) Telesoft Ada and Ready Systems VRTX, called RTAda, and 2) Verdix Ada and Wind River Systems, called VADSWorks. We initially purchased several copies of Telesoft Ada for the Sun 4s and one copy of Ready's RTAda for the MVME147 target. After doing further work with this system, we rejected it in favor of the Verdix system. We decided against the Telesoft/Ready solution primarily because Ready Systems did not deliver on networking and MVME147 board support that were supposed to be already complete and working. For our specific needs, the Verdix/Wind system was far superior to the Telesoft/Wind. We are currently using the Verdix Ada Sun 4 Self version 6.0.2(g) and the Sun 4 Cross to MVME147 VxWorks (VADSWorks) version 1.3. We have encountered our share of "internal errors," etc. The compiler is by no means perfect. In about one year, we have sent in 5-6 new bug reports. Many were fixed with the very next release. Overall, I would say that Verdix has been very responsive to our problems and worked with us. The problems have been manageable and have not prevented us from continuing our development. Generics are handled quite well, including generics within generics. Passive tasks (their optimization to speed up rendezvous) are an order of magnitude faster than regular tasks, but need to be extended to more situations (including inside generics). I can't say enough good especially about Software Leverage, to whom they have subcontracted support for VADSWorks. SLI has been extremely helpful and very quick to respond. This quick response includes our calling Verdix to formally record a problem or question, have them call SLI, then SLI calls us back to get the details. Two of the best features of VADS are the source level debugger and the make facility. The debugger handles all our code so far, including tasking, generics and C. The same debugger interface works on the Sun host as well as the MVME147 target. The make facility is very smart -- I rarely compile without it. It also works quite will within a Unix make. They both need improvements. The make needs to improve its handling of subunits and the debugger could handle signals better. One major complaint we have yet is the size of the executable images, both for Sun 4 and the target. Verdix claims to be working on a smarter linker that will eliminate the unused portions of packages and the RTS. I hope we see it soon. By the way, lets not start a C vs. Ada discussion on sizes of executables. Its been done to death. I point this out merely to show that I'm not wearing rose-colored lenses. (They're sorta tinted brown, anyway. :-) ) Terry J. Westley Arvin/Calspan Advanced Technology Center P.O. Box 400, Buffalo, NY 14225 acsu.buffalo.edu!planck!hercules!westley
endrizzi@sctc.com (Michael Endrizzi ) (08/16/90)
ryer@inmet.inmet.com writes: >However, I note that nearly all the bashing has been directed at Verdix. To Seeing I started slinging the mud, I should say that of all the responses I received from around the world and the phone calls I received, 50% said Verdix is probably one of the best Unix based compilers and it has been getting better with every release. One phone call stated that Unisys at Peole(sp??) would not use any other compiler. Because I am familiar with Dec and Rationale, my expectations are a little higher. I read Grady Booch's book, I took Ed Berards classes, I used Dec's compiler and it all worked like they said it would. But these were expensive products. I am not going to post the personal responses that I received, because if people wanted to make their opinions known they would have posted directly to the net. If I get time, I will delete the names and mail labels and post. Dreez ================================================================= ================================================================= Michael J. Endrizzi Secure Computing Technology Corp. 1210 W. County Road E #100 Arden Hills, Mn. 55112 endrizzi@sctc.com (612) 482-7425 *Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are not of my employer but of the American people. ================================================================= =================================================================