Re: ada -> C translator

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

dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

>Fergus said
>
><<What I had in mind was not a small subset Ada toy; I had in mind
>something that could be validated.>>
>
>Oh dear! I thought that at this stage there was *no one* left who thought
>that validated meant usable -- oh well.

I don't think validated necessarily means usable, but validatation does
indicate that something is not a small subset.

I had in mind something that was usable as well as validatable.

>I am giving up on trying to convince you since I don't think you have a
>sufficient frame of reference. If you want to prove me wrong, go ahead
>and translate a decent sized Ada program which uses the features of the
>language, including those in Annexes A-C reasonabley extensively, into
>the kind of C, and write the runtime that goes with it.

Does using someone else's Ada -> JVM and JVM -> C compilers count?

Do consider the AdaMagic (or is it AppletMagic?) Ada to JVM
compiler to be a toy?  Do you consider it to be usable?


When I originally wrote

	if you want efficiency, you may need to use machine-dependent
	code.  However, you can get this without sacrificing portability
	if you keep the less efficient but portable C code as a fallback.

I did not expect this to be a controversial statement.

--
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.