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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" Subject: Re: Porting Experiences (was Ada and Pascal etc ) Date: 1997/11/05 Message-ID: <34610614.33AC@gsg.eds.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 287408713 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <345BB35E.4488@dynamite.com.au> <63ftj9$r9g@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <345E3ACD.A15@gsg.eds.com> <63mcmm$r3s$1@helios.crest.nt.com> <345F95D0.3984@gsg.eds.com> <63omr0$put@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> Organization: EDS MS Reply-To: nospam@gsg.eds.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-11-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Craig Franck wrote: > > C is no less portable because of this. You may have a case if you > state that, perhaps, in this particular aspect of constructing > portable programs, Ada is more efficient. You can define your basic > types and have the compiler figure it all out. That may make for > more optimal code generation. But optimal code generation is not > the main goal of portable software. If the code runs half as fast > as a native assembler coded routine done by some asm guru whose > been pounding away at it for a week, you should be happy with your > tools. It's not just an efficiency issue. As an example, if I have to process data from the outside world, there is no portable way to declare them in C. As to the comparison with assembler, there are two problems with it. First, the alternative under discussion was Ada, and that's more maintainable than C, not less. Second, if you are using a modern assembler with a decent macro processor, the assembler code is likely to be more maintainable than C code as well (yes, I know that it won't be as tight as hand coded one-for-one, but that doesn't bother me.) -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Senior Software SE The values in from and reply-to are for the benefit of spammers: reply to domain eds.com, user msustys1.smetz or to domain gsg.eds.com, user smetz. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org