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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: Is ADA as good for graphics programming as C? (WAS: Re: Avoiding the second historic mistake) Date: 1997/07/05 Message-ID: <1997Jul5.110029.1@eisner>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 254807407 X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org References: <33957A33.1C31AB44@oma.com> <865898351snz@nezumi.demon.co.uk> <339ED54C.215A5F85@oma.com> <5noc8u$a8m$3@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <33A032AC.2D8BA85C@oma.com> <5nrn86$cvo$3@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <33A1CBBB.B0602EC@oma.com> <5o2uls$ku3$2@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <33A6ADDA.2099EEB9@oma.com> <33A7D2DE.545B@polaroid.com> <33A9338D.10BB@polaroid.com> <33B09D64.E7F99DA3@saguarosoft.com> <33B16CBB X-Nntp-Posting-User: KILGALLEN Followup-To: X-Trace: 868114837/21529 Organization: Digital Equipment Computer User's Society Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-07-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Organization: LJK Software Lines: 26 In article , abo@minkirri.apana.org.au (Donovan Baarda) writes: > On Fri, 04 Jul 1997 00:16:15 -0800, Matthew Heaney wrote: >>Also, at least a couple of other compiler vendors in the real-time market >>have purchased Intermetric's Ada-Magic front end, so that they too can >>spend their time on optimization, because they were able to buy the front >>end off the shelf. >> > what this also means is the front end is non-trivial, and they were better > off paying someone else a fortune for it than developing their own. I, for one, would not equate "trivial" with "good". At least one of the companies which paid "a fortune" managed to price the resultant compiler low enough that I can afford it, so what their total cost was does not concern me (since I have no intention of getting into the compiler business :-). Buying from someone else rather than "developing their own" is what one would call "re-use". I thought software "re-use" was one of the _favored_ buzz-words this year. Of course whether "re-use" is good or not certainly depends on the quality of the code which is being re-used. Presumably those who paid "a fortune" evaluated the quality of the code before they opened their wallet. Larry Kilgallen