My experience is vastly different from yours. I've been using Ada as my main language for personal stuff for some years now... I can't quite recall when, but call it 5+ years?
I won't say I've never run into some kind of problem with Ada on gcc (aka FSF GNAT), but it's been pretty minimal and easily avoided. I think it's been a grand total of two or three bugs that I've known of in that time. I've also run into known gcc bugs with C++ before so the situation doesn't seem particularly bad to me.
I find it hard to believe a solo or duo dev shop has a real need for a support contract for their compiler. What language can you get a support contract for that is affordable by anyone?
As I said, I tried the FSF version at about 2018. Might be way better now, I don't know.
My experience with gcc (C, not C++) for personal projects is exactly zero bugs. So, you see, experiences can differ ;-).
When saying "you need the support contract" I mean getting the commercial compiler version.
I think (theoretically?) AdaCore does not charge you for the compiler, but for support. And you only get access to the commercial compiler and libs if you have a support contract, no?
I admit I might be one of those who does not completely understand the legal circus around GNAT, AdaCore and the FSF version.
P.S.:
You can get commercial support from IAR for the C compiler and RTOS, which is next to useless ;-).
I mean, I was using FSF GNAT in 2018. And a few years before that, and some after it. I have a hard time imagining an experience even remotely described as unusable.
I do wish AdaCore didn't leave the compiler situation so confusing. It's just enough to be a consistent distraction.
Basically they all come from the same source. The GPL version gets a yearly release that, afaik is basically the commercial one (presumably not including anything customer specific). FSF then has a bit of a more ambiguous relationship with the GPL version, but AdaCore maintains that too. Probably around 2018 I think there was more effort being put into eliminating any remaining differences between the GPL and FSF versions.
They also have some further libraries that are available. At least some (maybe all? I don't know) are available under the GPL too. I have no idea how the pricing on that stuff goes. That strays from the compiler side of things though.
"I have a hard time imagining an experience even remotely described as unusable."
Ok, so i should give FSF GNAT a try then. I always tried AdaCore's package. It's unfortunate that comp.lang.ada isn't available anymore. I think there were quite some not so fun bugs reported.
Anyhow. I had a look at https://www.adacore.com/gnatpro/comparison. What strikes me as odd is only support for
x86 Windows/linux/MAC for the Community Edition. No ARM Linux (say Raspberry Pi)? That sure is not what it looks like, no?
I really don't want to pester you, but did you ever use Ada in a commercial setting and can you share your experience if so? I'm generally interested in Ada (i have a look at it every year or so), but the consensus on comp.lang.ada always was "for commercial usage you really should buy a commercial license (no matter the project, no matter from which company)".
Which more or less always meant AdaCore (some were suggesting Janus Ada, because of the moderate pricing) if you want an Ada compiler which supports the latest standard. Also, because AdaCore seems to be top dog in this area, with other vendors differing wildly in quality of compiler and libs.
I don't know if any of this is true, but those were the vibes from comp.lang.ada i received.
I haven't used Ada in a commercial setting, unfortunately. I was never that involved with comp.lang.ada so I can't really comment there. However I never really got that impression from freenode #ada. Based on what I heard there, I'd describe it more like "if you don't know that you need it, you don't need it." I also got the impression comp.lang.ada tended to be a bit more um... conservative, if you will. I'm not so surprised to hear they were more inclined to have a commercial license.
Personally speaking with my own experiences and what I saw on #ada I'd be comfortable going without a commercial license. I've only ever seen problems with somewhat odd situations, and I'm pretty sure all of them produced a bug box (compiler error message) so at least I was aware of the situation. And Ada often has multiple reasonable ways of doing something, so even if the odd/clever thing causes an error it's unlikely to be a blocker. Mostly it means I would have to put up with usage that's a little more not to my taste.
"I also got the impression comp.lang.ada tended to be a bit more um... conservative, if you will."
Hehe, yes definitely. But considering the projects some of the participants worked on, i can understand why. For those projects you do need a specific mindset.
So, thanks for sharing your experience. I will try the FSF version. Maybe this is the path forward for my personal projects (which might end up commercial ;-) ).
I won't say I've never run into some kind of problem with Ada on gcc (aka FSF GNAT), but it's been pretty minimal and easily avoided. I think it's been a grand total of two or three bugs that I've known of in that time. I've also run into known gcc bugs with C++ before so the situation doesn't seem particularly bad to me.
I find it hard to believe a solo or duo dev shop has a real need for a support contract for their compiler. What language can you get a support contract for that is affordable by anyone?