Re: Efficiency of code generated by Ada compilers

[Brian Drummond <brian_drummond@btconnect.com>]

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 02:58:11 +0100, "(see below)" <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 15/08/2010 01:58, in article irce665hsdkil92saql82nl41cc3vpbq1j@4ax.com,

>>> Indeed. Though David Harland's ideas on programming language design were
>>> about as far removed from the Ada philosophy as it is possible to get.
>> 
>> I'm not so sure on *design* - the goals were largely to achieve expressive
>> power, to give the programmer the best abstractions; 

>Yes, but I fear he was over-optimistic about the ability of most programmers
>to design coherent and effective language extensions/features (as opposed to
>application-oriented abstractions) for themselves. 

I think that's an interesting distinction - when are you extending the language,
rather than abstracting over application details? Probably not for here and now.
But - maybe I shouldn't say this - I see some echoes of David's arguments when
Dmitry Kazakov is expressing frustration at Ada's limitations.

>We had many an argument
>about that. I think the history of programming languages supports my
>pessimism. Ada stands out, head and shoulders above the other 700K
>programming languages.

Yes, there is no doubt that Ada's complexity, though it was one of our drivers
to simplify SW (especially compilers) at the expense of the HW, is no longer
relevant. Compilers have advanced enormously, and machines can run them fast
enough!  

However I think the way Ada developed in 95 and 2005 brings it much closer to
the expressive power he was seeking, without compromising on its compile time
strengths. 

But, I am told, writing astronomy books is more fun anyway.

Thanks for sharing memories,

- Brian