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: 103376,37b5f16b9be86fec X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) Subject: Re: ada -> C translator Date: 1997/04/09 Message-ID: <5ifhs0$kgr@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 231753237 References: <33436B29.41C6@sema-grenoble.fr> <5i243c$i1h@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <5i4jok$qiq@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <5i9r5t$nb6@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <5icuf7$4k1$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <334A660E.52BF@lanl.gov> Organization: Comp Sci, University of Melbourne Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: William Clodius 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 | "I have always known that the pursuit WWW: | of excellence is a lethal habit" PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.