> Perhaps companies and individual with an interest in a permissively licensed Ada ecosystem should step up and create it? Build it on top of LLVM and call it, say, alang.
If it is an Ada implementation, why wouldn't they call it Ada rather than alang?
If it is an Ada implementation, why wouldn't they call it Ada rather than alang?
In the same way that "the" C/C++ LLVM frontend is called clang and the Fortran frontend is called flang. So a hypothetical Ada frontend could be called alang.
Comments
If it is an Ada implementation, why wouldn't they call it Ada rather than alang?
If the language implements the Ada standard (http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/rm12_w_tc1/html/RM-TOC.htm...), it is Ada, regardless of how the particular implementation is licensed.
In the same way that "the" C/C++ LLVM frontend is called clang and the Fortran frontend is called flang. So a hypothetical Ada frontend could be called alang.
I wasn't arguing against that, but, yes I agree.
I understand now.
It would be the alang Ada compiler similar to the clang C compiler.
Thank you for clarifying.
A serious lack of imagination, re clang, flang, etc.