Re: Improving build system

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.arch.embedded
Subject	Re: Improving build system
Date	2025-05-16 14:42 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<1007br8$3ookp$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <1001m9t$2drv1$1@dont-email.me> <100338u$2c42e$1@dont-email.me> <c94d43da-584f-c99b-c7c3-6ee2b3d3a278@irrt.De> <1004bg1$3218k$2@dont-email.me> <30d3e1d1-2417-7da6-ce4c-bdc20ef7a4a1@irrt.De>

Show all headers | View raw

On 16/05/2025 12:21, Nicolas Paul Colin de Glocester wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2025, David Brown wrote:
> "There /are/ no alternatives that are more trustworthy - they
> just have different failure or risk points.  There can be benefits in buying a
> commercial IDE, and/or a commercial toolchain, but lower risk of bugs, quirks or
> installation issues is most certainly not one of them."
> 
> C and C++ compilers and codes produced thereby are not trustworthy. Use
> commercial Ada compilers to avoid bugs.

No one was questioning the trustworthiness of compilers or the code they 
generate.  The issue was about how well IDE's cope with unusual 
installations outside the defaults expected by the supplier.  The free 
IDE's provided with manufacturers are vastly more commonly used than 
commercial IDE's (especially those that have their own custom IDE's), 
and you can expect them to have been tested and used in a much wider 
range of circumstances.

As for the trustworthiness of compilers, that's another matter.  I have 
never seen any reason to suppose that commercial compilers are more 
trustworthy (in terms of accepting valid code or generating correct 
code) than the good open source compilers (gcc and clang).  I have never 
seen any reason to suppose that Ada compilers are more trustworthy than 
C or C++ compilers.  On the contrary, I find that more popular tools are 
less likely to have serious bugs.

Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Improving build system pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 17:57 +0200
  Re: Improving build system Nicolas Paul Colin de Glocester <Spamassassin@irrt.De> - 2025-05-13 22:48 +0200
  Re: Improving build system David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-14 11:03 +0200
    Re: Improving build system George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2025-05-14 15:21 -0400
      Re: Improving build system David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-15 09:48 +0200
      Re: Improving build system Nioclás Pól Caileán de Ghloucester <Spamassassin@irrt.De> - 2025-07-04 18:38 +0200
    Re: Improving build system pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 23:51 +0200
      Re: Improving build system Nicolas Paul Colin de Glocester <Spamassassin@irrt.De> - 2025-05-15 01:00 +0200
        Re: Improving build system David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-15 11:17 +0200
          Re: Improving build system Nicolas Paul Colin de Glocester <Spamassassin@irrt.De> - 2025-05-16 12:21 +0200
            Re: Improving build system David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-16 14:42 +0200
      Re: Improving build system David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-15 11:03 +0200
        Re: Improving build system pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2025-05-15 23:25 +0200
          Re: Improving build system David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-16 11:12 +0200
            Re: Improving build system pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 12:46 +0200
              Re: Improving build system David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-16 15:30 +0200
                Re: Improving build system pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 16:17 +0200
    Re: Improving build system pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 15:45 +0200
      Re: Improving build system David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-05-16 17:20 +0200
        Re: Improving build system pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 10:56 +0200
  Re: Improving build system Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2025-05-14 18:06 +0200

csiph-web