Re: Looking for Ada to C++ translator

Re: Looking for Ada to C++ translator

[agate!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!darwin.sura.net!source.asset.com!tann]

DO NOT DO IT.  I am at a site that translated PLM to Ada via a software
package thinking it would be cheaper.  What a horrible mess that 100k
system turned out to be.  Every parameter was passed as a
'System_Address. Strings were constructed using Char'Pos.  Arg.  Totally
unmaintainable code, even by the developers.

Save yourself a lot of trouble, rewrite the system in the new language.

Re: Looking for Ada to C++ translator

[cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com]

In <1993Feb17.231349.18786@source.asset.com> tannend@source.asset.com (David M.
 Tannen) writes:

>DO NOT DO IT.  I am at a site that translated PLM to Ada via a software
>package thinking it would be cheaper.  What a horrible mess that 100k
>system turned out to be.  Every parameter was passed as a
>'System_Address. Strings were constructed using Char'Pos.  Arg.  Totally
>unmaintainable code, even by the developers.

>Save yourself a lot of trouble, rewrite the system in the new language.

I'll second that.  Rewriting lets you use the strengths of the new
language, plus you get something you can maintain out the other side.
This applies to *any* conversion.  The only time to do it is if you
don't have any other options.  Otherwise, it's cheaper and easier to
just rewrite.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Re: Looking for Ada to C++ translator

[Alex Blakemore]

In article <1993Feb19.184849.20853@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com 
(fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> Rewriting lets you use the strengths of the new
> language, plus you get something you can maintain out the other side.
> This applies to *any* conversion.  The only time to do it is if you
> don't have any other options.  Otherwise, it's cheaper and easier to
> just rewrite.

I see everybody believes in the great reuse dogma around here.

One alternative worth considering is to leave some modules that work
and dont need change in the old language, write others and the new language,
build a binding and be happy.

Bindings can at least be partially constructed automatically with reasonable re
sults.
see the c2ada package at sgi.com by Mark Schimmel for a good example.
It still needs work afterwards but it cuts down alot of the tedium.

This approach is often fast to market and a reasonable compromise technically.
People too often fear mixed language development but with a little care its
often fairly painless - probably much less pain than translating alot of 
software that really didnt have to be translated.

But I agree, if you cant build a binding and call the old code.
Develop in the new language - dont translate mechanically.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------
Alex Blakemore alex@cs.umd.edu   NeXT mail accepted