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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,751584f55705ddb7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: crawley@dstc.edu.au (Stephen Crawley)
Subject: Re: Ada is almost useless in embedded systems
Date: 1996/03/18
Message-ID: <4iiclr$59j@azure.dstc.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 143485867
references: <9603131418.AA01642@eight-ball>
 <4ichi8$17tg@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
organization: CRC for Distributed Systems Technology
reply-to: crawley@dstc.edu.au
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-03-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <4ichi8$17tg@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
Norman H. Cohen <ncohen@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <9603131418.AA01642@eight-ball>, Bob Crispen
><revbob@EIGHT-BALL.HV.BOEING.COM> writes: 
>
>|> What I'm shocked at is that Ada stopped at 16!  How hard would it have
>|> been to permit *any* numeric base?  Anyone who's ever written a Forth
>|> compiler knows how simple it is, and how useful things like base-36
>|> encoding can be.  How many encoding/decoding routines have been written
>|> that could have been obviated by making the compiler do this work?
>
>And for bases 37 and higher, from what alphabet do you choose the digits
>for 36, 37, 38, ...?

Kanji?  We should be able to handle bases of a hundred thousand or so
if we try hard enough.

[Don't try this at home kids :-)]

-- Steve