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: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: Craig Franck Subject: Re: Porting Experiences (was Ada and Pascal etc ) Date: 1997/11/07 Message-ID: <63tq2h$b6o@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 287534426 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <345BB35E.4488@dynamite.com.au> <63ftj9$r9g@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <345E3ACD.A15@gsg.eds.com> <63mcmm$r3s$1@helios.crest.nt.com> <345F95D0.3984@gsg.eds.com> <63omr0$put@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <34610614.33AC@gsg.eds.com> Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1997-11-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote: >Craig Franck wrote: >> >> C is no less portable because of this. You may have a case if you >> state that, perhaps, in this particular aspect of constructing >> portable programs, Ada is more efficient. You can define your basic >> types and have the compiler figure it all out. That may make for >> more optimal code generation. But optimal code generation is not >> the main goal of portable software. If the code runs half as fast >> as a native assembler coded routine done by some asm guru whose >> been pounding away at it for a week, you should be happy with your >> tools. > >It's not just an efficiency issue. As an example, if I have to process >data from the outside world, there is no portable way to declare them in >C. Sure there is; C programmers do it all the time. >As to the comparison with assembler, there are two problems with it. >First, the alternative under discussion was Ada, and that's more >maintainable than C, not less. I think well written code in C or Ada is just about equally maintain- able by competent programmers in their respective languages. >Second, if you are using a modern >assembler with a decent macro processor, the assembler code is likely to >be more maintainable than C code as well That's silly. (You been hanging out with SN?) >(yes, I know that it won't be >as tight as hand coded one-for-one, but that doesn't bother me.) By the time you have a macro assembler as maintainable as C, you would have implemented a compiler. At which point using it would be silly, because C is more portable. -- Craig clfranck@worldnet.att.net Manchester, NH I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several days attack me at once. -- Ashleigh Brilliant