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: 103376,5f6125e9594f9968 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.125.233 with SMTP id mt9mr23962715pbb.5.1332879305940; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:15:05 -0700 (PDT) Path: z9ni8699pbe.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: kalvin.news@gmail.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada to C translator for small microcontrollers Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:13:46 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <26305817.1823.1332879226490.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbiz13> References: <2424259e-cf1c-408e-a57e-f2c948087186@i2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com> <18324383.19.1332841560517.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbht7> NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.78.181.164 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1332879305 18554 127.0.0.1 (27 Mar 2012 20:15:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 20:15:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: anon@anon.org In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=62.78.181.164; posting-account=QrZwxQoAAAByl3YAWTpexAk3yBYyZMHn User-Agent: G2/1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2012-03-27T13:13:46-07:00 List-Id: tiistaina 27. maaliskuuta 2012 20.22.07 UTC+3 an...@att.net kirjoitti: > Full language translators are mostly used to move a project away from =20 > one language to another more accessable language. So, why use Ada in > the first place. This is a very valid question. How large a software project needs to be in = order to benefit from implementing it in Ada? Is it only a one person prjoe= ct, two person project or project involving a small team. Why bother with A= da as we already have (free) C compiler avaiable. If the project is a small one, and you don't have to share the code with ot= hers, C is just fine. But as soon as the project size get bigger (than a fe= w thousand lines of code, or project contains more than ten source modules)= and you need to collaborate with others, my guess is that Ada might be a r= ight tool for the job. Of course, these estimates are pulled top of my head= , but are based on a personal experience anyway. =20 > Now, if you add the code for a new processor to GNU GCC and GNAT then=20 > most languages are avialable for use. Not just Ada and C/C++, but you=20 > can also have Fortran, Java, and etc. I do not know the internals of GCC, but I am in impression that GCC is opti= mized for 32/64-bit architectures, and 8/16-bit architectures are hardly su= pported. I do know, that some Hitachi (and maybe AVR) 8/16-bit controllers = are supported, though. > Plus, before using language translators you should understand that most= =20 > only aid in the translating a subset of the full language. Like "C2Ada"= =20 > which partially converted C code to Ada. I do realize, that it might be almost impossible to produce efficient C sou= rce translation for corresponding Ada, compared to corresponding assembly. - Kalvin