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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 5b1e799cdb,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-Attributes: gid5b1e799cdb,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed0.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!news.n-ix.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:02:16 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <see.reply.to@maps.futureapps.de>
Reply-To: rm.tsoh-bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090608)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.modula3,comp.programming
Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?
References: <h3sln0$rhm$2@news.eternal-september.org>
 <7cf9peF2758tgU1@mid.individual.net>
 <1ac0d96f-9dfc-4bcb-abff-2f5cb1c5da8d@e4g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
 <87tz18bskg.fsf@galatea.local>
In-Reply-To: <87tz18bskg.fsf@galatea.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4a635fa9$0$31329$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Jul 2009 20:02:17 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 6a6fe98a.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=GLG^fj:CI?JlU`@c^jLCbJ4IUK<Cl32<A4Fo<]lROoRA^YC2XCjHcbITRc8Z?m;9PCA:ho7QcPOVCQ4^14RZ64IHBINm3gRc]7M
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.eiffel:315 comp.lang.ada:7154
 comp.lang.modula3:41 comp.programming:11840
Date: 2009-07-19T20:02:17+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:

> Later, when you have a collection of proven algorithms, you may write
> (still in Common Lisp, why reject a winning team?), a translator to
> convert your algorithmic s-exps into the target language of your
> choice, be it Ada, Pascal, C, Eiffel, Fortran, Haskell, Modula-2 or
> Modula-3, whatever you need.  It's almost trivial to generate such
> code from a DSL expressed in s-exps.

How can a translation can be trivial unless it is but a
mere syntactic rewrite?  This way one dismisses both an
essential constraint and an opportunity: the programmed
algorithm, the computation, is performed in steps, by a
human, by a Lisp machine, by a von Neumann PU, or by
some innovative parallel computer, each having known
formal properties.  Is it possible to let these influence
the s-expressions (the algorithm, that is) such that
the "target language"'s features will be effective?