From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 109fba,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: 115aec,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Thread: f43e6,703c4f68db81387d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid109fba,gid115aec,gidf43e6,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "Chad R. Meiners" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada) Date: 29 Mar 2005 13:35:11 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1112132111.054781.262770@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <87r7iu85lf.fsf@insalien.org><1110052142.832650@athnrd02> <1110284070.410136.205090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <395uqaF5rhu2mU1@individual.net> <1111607633.301232.62490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1111628011.160315.134740@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1111732101.995662.309040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <1111785256.454375.76600@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1369131.HYMxOlSdZt@linux1.krischik.com> <1111868963.494133.291150@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1111951298.083776.80510@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1112000988.566574.80420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.167.137.13 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112132115 32362 127.0.0.1 (29 Mar 2005 21:35:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:35:15 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/0.2 Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=67.167.137.13; posting-account=paoWPg0AAABe-C1bfTlsEbfoc5yNqKFn Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10132 comp.lang.c++:47862 comp.realtime:1822 comp.software-eng:5460 Date: 2005-03-29T13:35:11-08:00 List-Id: Jerry Coffin wrote: >First of all, at least in my dictionary, "indicate" is defined with >words like "points to" and "suggests", NOT "proves" or anything very >similar. Really? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=indicates entry four "To state or express briefly (e.g. indicated his wishes in a letter; indicating her approval with a nod.)" seems to provide the most appropriate definition, which just happens to support my statement. You should also note that the "points to" and "suggests" entries have other very important words next to them which render them as inappropriate to use for the meaning of the word "indicate" in this dialog. >Second, I have to wonder whether you really have a good idea of the >size of project we're talking about. Yes, I have a decent idea as to the size of the project. However, this is irrelevent. > Second, unless porting Ada compilers is a LOT more expensive than > porting C++ compilers I thought we were talking about C compilers. Anyway my point is that is that if SCADE already generates C code and the subsystem that they are targetting with SCADE has a C compiler. Why should they commision an Ada compiler so that they could generate Ada code only to compile it back to machine code when the C compiler will generate the machine code? C (in the can of SCADE) is the intermediate language because it has the available compilers for the targetted platform. >I'll openly admit that the slides don't absolutely _prove_ nearly as >much as we'd like to know. Wow! I am impressed by the extent of you admission. We have made real progress here in your admission of the trivial. > They're generally vague, lacking detail, >definition or rigor -- but despite that they still constitute roughly >95% of the hard evidence presented so far in this entire thread! I submit this paperweight as hard evidence. I am not sure as to what it is evidence of, but I know it is hard. That was demonstrates when I dropped it on my foot ;-) So now this paperweight makes up 25% percent of the evidence. I am curious how these three presentations can make of 95% of something. 75% I can see but 95%?