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=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,PLING_QUERY
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b6d862eabdeb1fc4
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!195.96.0.7.MISMATCH!newsfeed.utanet.at!newsfeed01.chello.at!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:58:39 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?
References: <4bfbbdcb$0$6882$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 	<93a818e9c91ccba6d8ea3a7258ef3265@mixmaster.it>
 	<4bfbdd95$0$6776$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 	<htgt3m$n53$1@news.eternal-september.org> <828w776s7j.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
In-Reply-To: <828w776s7j.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4bfcf0d0$0$6889$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 May 2010 11:58:40 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: dc3a204a.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=IfA>Djii10>QbA1[CgMQ00A9EHlD;3Yc24Fo<]lROoR18kF<OcfhCO;TZmaVk1ol`:nc\616M64>:Lh>_cHTX3j=X]OYAKQkC3;
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11048
Date: 2010-05-26T11:58:40+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 26.05.10 09:24, Stephen Leake wrote:
> "J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> writes:
> 
>> In most programming languages, there is a relation between the structure
>> of the language itself and the kind of data it handles best. 
> 
> This is certainly true.
> 
>> For this reason, and others like ease of porting, it is generally a
>> good idea to write the compiler in its own language, safe for special
>> cases like initial bootstrapping.
> 
> That does not follow. If I have a language designed for manipulating
> databases, that means is is _not_ a good language for implementing a
> compiler. 

A database language may be compiled by itself if the program text
is suitably stored?
Notably, a compiler has tables, relational databases have tables;
when a compiler establishes a hierarchy (a tree), a hierachical
database does, too, a relational database uses ... relations.
Surely the "source text" will be easily processed if it reflects
the structural properties of the database---if it is stored as
relations. For example, when an Ada compiler marks a block such as
a loop with a name written by the programmer, or with an ad-hoc
name that it creates itself, then a database table of loops can
have those names, too. (And they would serve in unique keys.)
Similarly, the database can establish a "byte code table" for
executing a list of CRUD instructions...

Hmm... It might in fact be interesting to store program information
in tables.  It is then possible to perform queries like "give me all
loops involving variables of a type in T'Class." ...