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: 103376,4dd2bd034f4d0d4a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4dd2bd034f4d0d4a X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: frank@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (Frank Manning) Subject: Re: WANTED: Ada-to-C Translator Date: 1996/10/12 Message-ID: <53p1ob$eae@news.ccit.arizona.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 189026819 references: <325963A3.3074@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com> <53im9c$10jc@news.ccit.arizona.edu> organization: College of Engineering and Mines, University of Arizona newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c Date: 1996-10-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) writes: > No, "NO!" means just that - no. The bit you reference here concerns > an Ada _compiler_ which happened to use C as a backend target (for > "portability" and whatever...) While a compiler is a translator, the > original question seems to really be one concerning a translator which > would produce _human_ readable/maintainable code for all future > reference. That is, you use it once and toss the source and start > manually maintaining the output. This sort of thing is _very_ > different and is the source of all the "NO"s... Well, perhaps that was the intent of the original question, but I had also brought up an old thread (Oct 95) about the merits of an 8051 Ada compiler. I wondered about using one of these C-backend- compilers for that purpose, which would not require human readable output. In other words, the idea is to write and maintain Ada code, not do a one-time translation and maintain the C code. I got plenty of opinion about what a dumb idea this is, but nobody told me where I can get one of these compilers -- dumb or not. Perhaps if I went into more detail about what I want. The application would be classified as academic fiddling, I suppose. I have a Blue Earth Micro-440 with a built-in Basic interpreter and low-level assembler. I've written short programs in a mixture of Basic and assembler, and I'd prefer to write in a compiled language that's somewhat safer than C. I recognize that a C-backend-compiler would be difficult to optimize, as Erik Magnuson points out. However, compared to a Basic interpreter, I could still get at least an order of magnitude better performance with NO optimization AT ALL. On the other hand, maybe I should just go with C. Less trouble in the long run. -- Frank Manning