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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!rex!ames!haven!decuac!grebyn!ted From: ted@grebyn.com (Ted Holden) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: C++ to Ada? Message-ID: <14118@grebyn.com> Date: 3 Jan 90 15:14:00 GMT Organization: Grebyn Timesharing, Vienna, VA List-Id: From: Dick Dunn >So...we know that we can preprocess C++ -> C. I suspect one can preprocess >to get C -> Ada. Combine the two and you've got a tool analogous to >"Classic Ada" except that its input looks like C++. [...] [Various replies....] You people seem to have your fairy-tale backwards. It was the guy who transmuted base metal into gold who the emperor rewarded; the guy who transmuted the gold into donkey dukey got hung. From: Bill Wolf, Clemson > I personally would consider the use of a C++-to-Ada preprocessor for > the development of new code to be entirely out of the spirit of Ada. Why are you and your friends even considering such a thing, Bill? Having problems with Ada again? I mean, I'm not sitting here considering translating Smalltalk or Eiffel into C++ or any of MY languages... > In my view, the dividing line is as follows: > [long theological discussion on when translating into Ada is permissible...] > 1) The use of preprocessing techniques is limited to those > situations in which specific, indispensable requirements > cannot be satisfied using Ada alone, without incurring > extraordinary and disastrous expenses. Such as when a project actually needs to get done? Problem is, you've still got the whole thing backwards. What you need is a good Ada --> C or Ada --> C++ translater. Funny that somebody so heavily into Ada seems to think in terms of "extraordinary and disasterous expenses" as if such terminology were descriptive of everyday facts of life. I mean, your language kinds of gives away the nature of your game, if you know what I mean. In fact, it almost sounds poetic, as if... "...caught from some unhappy master Poe whom unmerciful disaster followed fast, and followed faster..." "...till this sorry, wretched bastard Holden turned to grace, to C once more; flung the Ada monster back into the night's plutonian shore, crying 'Never... nevermore'" or something like that. I mean, if I were programming in Ada, I'd keep a copy of Poe's works right next to the terminal. Seems fitting. > Similarly, the undisciplined practices which > are common among the users of C and C++ would not simply vanish during the > translation process..... Undisciplined practices? Such as bringing projects in on time and under budget?? Can't have that, now, can we? From: Horst Kern, Muenchen; West-Germany >Okay, I can see the problem: Even though everyone was called to >participate in the Ada effort, some people - like Edsgar Dijkstra - >have given their reasons for repelling all three language proposals >and are now hoping that the Russians will use Ada too. (He made this >statement 6 years ago so it is perhaps not up to date any more.) Turns out, the Russians aren't that stupid. I asked a couple of them about it recently; their reply was something like "Kommunizm nam obespechivaet s gorami i neshchactiem dostatochno..." (communism provides us with all the grief and heartache we require). They appear to be programming mostly in C these days. >The current discussion makes it evident that the laws (again this word >which is so much disliked) of nature have not yet been discovered in >computer science. So I think it is a good discussion and nobody should >tell Ted Holdon to shut up. They were telling me to shut up because their side of the net looks like a steady stream of articles (they have no "N" button to hit to reject an article). I can't really sympathize with them; sounds like their network software was written in Ada or something. By the way, that's "Holden", with an "e". From: Kent of Zanth, >Granted that Ada is a marvelous language in its narrowly defined area >of competence, I think any defense lawyer would have a field day >poking holes in a language that has been frozen by a military >bureaucracy; that ignores best current practice (full fledged OOP); >whose semantics is so ill defined that most programmer users avoid >most of the language most of the time, and most employers put lots of >language features off limits; the implementation of one of whose main >goals (concurrent programming support for embedded multiprocessor >systems) is held up as a horrid example in language theory classes; >whose syntax ignored established usage in favor of cuteness or >uniqueness (read opaqueness); whose behavior is completely >counter-intuitive, and on and on and on. >Ada just has no business being pointed to as a standard >of language excellence. It is too big, too awkward, shows its seams >too prominently, and is _much_ too hard to teach, to learn, and to >use. The "Dear Ada" column in Ada Letters is always an occassion for >laughter and tears, but never for that warm feeling of satisfaction at >seeing a job well done. Amen. There has been some dispute here recently concerning the term "high level" (i.e. that Ada is a "high level" language as opposed to C, which isn't). The truth is that the dichotomy is roughly as follows: of major languages at present, C++ is a high level language (OOP). C is a high-structured, low-level language, a kind of a thinking-man's assembler, if you will. Ada is a high-overhead, low-performance language, a non-thinking-man's dis- assembler, intended for disassembling projects, careers, reputations, psychological profiles, aeroplanes (such as the French Airbus) etc. etc. Ted Holden HTE