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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,38159b1b5557a2e7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-23 18:00:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!d9c68f36!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4011D1D6.5020706@noplace.com> From: Marin David Condic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Standard Ada Preprocessor (Was: why ada is so unpopular ?) References: <40117E10.A623D228@notes.udayton.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 02:00:56 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.29.5 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net 1074909656 209.165.29.5 (Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:00:56 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:00:56 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4750 Date: 2004-01-24T02:00:56+00:00 List-Id: Probably because it was widely ignored by implementers and hence pretty close to useless. In a perfect world, all compilers would recognize platform differences and correct for them so you had 100% portable code - but this is not likely to happen while I'm above ground. Its really pretty hopeless to expect that a compiler writer can forsee *all* platform differences and deal with them via some abstraction, so you have to leave it in the hands of the developer. Somehow, the developer needs to detect and code around such platform differences. MDC Leon Winslow wrote: > **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com **** > > I'm interested in knowing why no one has mentioned that 40 years ago the > COBAL language included a statement to specify the machine and/or > operating system for the executable code. If you wanted the program to > run on a UNIX box, you essentially entered UNIX at the head of the > program; if you wanted it to run on a Windows box you entered Windows. > The rest of the program remained the same. (Its been a long time since > I used this feature so I don't remember the exact syntax. Maybe someone > else knows?) > > Of course, very few compilers actually implemented more than one > option. If you wanted a different one, you usually needed a different > compiler. > > The important feature however is that the rest of the program was > independent of the machine that would execute the program. If COBAL > could implement this 40 years ago, why can't we try something similar? > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** > http://www.usenet.com > Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat. Its the FAT that makes you look fat." -- Al Bundy ======================================================================