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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1014db,9adfbb907494972e X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,9adfbb907494972e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Subject: Re: Ada to C/C++ translator needed Date: 1996/09/30 Message-ID: <52o2eg$hfl@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 186195361 references: <32499FA0.4B5E@magic.fr> <52e5t5$m28@btmpjg.god.bel.alcatel.be> <52feul$os2@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <01bbad6e$67743f20$32ee6fcf@timhome2> <52ltk5$qlf@news1.halcyon.com> <01bbae25$67c669a0$32ee6fcf@timhome2> organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada nntp-posting-user: ok Date: 1996-09-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Tim Behrendsen" writes: >However, to generalize on that basis that Ada is *always* as >efficient as C is dangerous thinking, particularly for the original >poster's "real" application software that he wants to convert to C. No such generalisation has been made by anyone, except by you as a straw man. All that has been offered is a disproof of the *opposite* generalisation (that C is always more efficient than Ada). >In fact, I can show you APL lines of code that could potentially >beat an equivalent C program (because there are so many fundamental >primitives are are natively implemented), but that doesn't mean >I want to write MS/Word using APL. I didn't talk about something _potentially_ more efficient, I talked about something that is *actually* more efficient. Why doesn't Behrendsen understand the *really* important point about my posting? Surely it was obvious that - obtaining, installing, and using a FREE Ada compiler that can generate very good code on a wide range of platforms, and NOT converting the code, but continuing to maintain it in Ada stands an excellent chance of being *CHEAPER* than - converting Ada to C, partly by tool, partly by hand, and then trying to maintain the result in C. >And BTW, it may well be *true* that Ada can be as efficient >as C. You simply can't prove it in this manner. I am *sick* of Behrenden's debating tricks. NOONE WAS *TRYING* to prove that Ada is always as efficient as C.\ All I trying to do, and what I *succeeded* in doing, was *DIS*proving the popular contrary belief. >Show me a CAD >system, RDBMS, heck, id Software's Quake! written in both C and >Ada (or Scheme) using the same algorithms, and *then* tell me the >results. Pay for my time, and I'll do it. My time costs A$140/hour. Put up or shut up. -- Australian citizen since 14 August 1996. *Now* I can vote the xxxs out! Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci.