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,c0f035b936128b6c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,c0f035b936128b6c
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: Ada95 to ANSI_C converter
Date: 1997/04/02
Message-ID: <5htp1a$h1$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 230148742
References: <dewar.859559977@merv> <5htg0a$v8v$1@news.nyu.edu>
 <dewar.859987799@merv>
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c
Date: 1997-04-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.859987799@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>The discrepancy here has to do with your view of what it means to produce
>something like this. If you are talking about just getting something
>working, and someone who knows GCC is doing the work, you can cranck 
>something out pretty quick. But to make something approach a usable product
>is always much more work
>
>One thing that would complicate this particular project substantially is
>the testing. Since the idea is to get something that works on all C compilers
>on all machines, reasonably thorough testing means playing on lots of
>different machines, which always adds a lot of effort.

Yes, I was indeed referring to just getting something working.  It's
not too clear what making a "product" out of such a thing would mean,
especially because of the testing issues you raise, which would be a
major proposition.

I'd view such an effort as creating more of a *tool* that could be used
in various products than as a product itself.