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 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.
> 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.
I wasn't arguing against that, but, yes I agree.
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.
The fun part is that dragonegg became an important part of clang/llvm for years (before it was phased out) to compile fortran (before flang) and to compare clang results and gcc's. I seem to remember other interesting uses but my memory is failing me.
Duncan Sands (the original author I think?) is an outstanding engineer and very fun person to talk to.
[0] https://blog.adacore.com/combining-gnat-with-llvm [1] https://blog.adacore.com/use-of-gnat-llvm-to-translate-ada-a... [2] https://blog.adacore.com/android-application-with-ada-and-we...