Re: Ada to C++ translator?

[Lao Xiao Hai <laoxhai@ix.netcom.com>]

tmoran@acm.org wrote:

> >We are re-using code from a legacy system, and we have spent a lot of
> >effort on binding this legacy Ada code to the RTOS we are using.
>   I don't quite understand the situation:  You had N lines of Ada running,
> using an old RTOS, and now you are moving to a new RTOS and finding there
> were M system calls that need changing, and M is a painfully large number.
> The proposal is to convert to C/C++, which saves writing "pragma Import"
> etc for the system calls.  [snipped the rest of Tom's message ... ]

This is not an uncommon with Ada 95.  We have several clients using RTOS's
that were supported under Ada 83 but are not supported with Ada 95.  In
particular, the newer version of the RTOS is not supported under Ada 95 and
may be awkward, at best, trying to execute the older Ada 83 code.

For some of these RTOS (e.g.,  HP-RT), the developers have few options except
C or C++.   There simply is no Ada 95 available for the platform.   In the
HP-RT
example, Alsys, the original Ada compiler publisher is gone and its successor,
Aonix,
has no economic incentive to upgrade the compiler to Ada 95 for the new RTOS.

With the abrogation of the Ada "mandate" there are quite a few of these
unsupported
platforms for Ada 95.   Since the DoD contractor is not required to use Ada,
they
have no incentive to purchase a compiler.   Since they have not incentive to
purchase
a compiler, the compiler publisher has no incentive to produce a compiler.
This is
especially true for those small, seldom used platforms that are so specialized
that the
market is lean for them.    We have a lot of specialized  military computers
still in
service (and being upgraded) for which is little likelihood of there ever
being an
Ada 95 compiler.    There ought to be since these are often safety-critical.
However,
many DoD program managers have concluded that Ada is no longer relevant.
With
this kind of stupidity on the increase, compiler publishers are forced to take
the path of
best ROI.

Richard Riehle