Re: ada -> C translator

[fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson)]

William Clodius <wclodius@lanl.gov> writes:

>An Ada compiler to retain efficiency and correctness of
>translation has to be more sensitive than Mercury to machine (and C
>compiler) differences.  If the amount of code that is processor
>independent is relatively small, then the usefullness of C as a portable
>language vanishes.

I don't think that follows.  Even if the amount of machine-indendent
code in the compiler and/or runtime is dwarfed by the amount of
machine-dependent code, the ability to easily port to new machines is
useful.  It may require lots of additional work to make such ports
efficient, but an inefficient port (or one that doesn't support
interfacing to COBOL, or one that doesn't support shared libraries,
etc.) is still a lot better than none at all.

--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>   |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>   |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3         |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.