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: 10261c,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 10c950,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10c950,public From: "Larry Elmore" Subject: Re: ADA and Pascal SUCK, C,C++, and Java are the only languages you need!! Date: 1997/11/07 Message-ID: <63usgf$9il@netra.montana.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 288194604 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <34566fe9.447229@news.mindspring.com> <345673af.1413708@news.mindspring.com> <3456b9f3.0@news.eznet.net> <3456e71b.3833189@news.mindspring.com> <3459AC95.1D75@dynamite.com.au> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Organization: montana.edu Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso,comp.lang.pascal.misc Date: 1997-11-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: John Stevens wrote in message ... >On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, Alan E & Carmel J Brain wrote: >>While I agree with most of your post, I must take issue here. C and C++ >>are perceived as being portable. Inasmuch as there are almost no major >>computers which don't have a C or C++ compiler, this is true. And that's >>a big, big selling point. >> >>However.... >> >>C and C++ compilers differ by so much that porting is often a Nightmare. >>Before I get flamed, I'd like to talk to people who've actually ported >>code cross-platform. > >Speaking (err, that is, writing! ;->). > >I have written code specifically designed to be ported across platforms. > >Note that most of the results of the GNU project have been ported across >platforms as well, and lately the results have been quite good. Well, when it's _designed_ that way from the beginning, that makes a tremendous difference. When it's got to be done for some prize piece of work that _wasn't_ written that way, but someone wants to port anyway, that's something else entirely... >The limiting factor in portability is almost always OS or library issues, >not incompatibilities in the language itself. How can you say that about C++, a language in evolution with different compiler vendors supporting different features at different times? >>In my own, albeit limited experience, the problems >>I've had with any C or C++ port are greater than all the problems I've >>had with Ada crossplatform put together! > >Well, considering I was unable to port an Ada program to two of the five >platforms I was targeting, while I was able to port a C program to all five, >I'd have to say that C is infinitely more portable. Or you understand C a lot better than you do Ada... >YMMV, and all that. > >>If you have an Ada compiler > >That *IF*, being the gotcha. > >Has anybody ever successfully used Ada on a Linux box? Yes, for quite some time now. From Linux 1.2.13 and GNAT 3.05 to Linux 2.0.31 and GNAT 3.10p (including recompiling GNAT for my system). And what I do at home on my P90 compiles and runs identically on Win95 PCs, a DEC Alpha running OSF1 v 4.0, and another older Alpha running VMS (all using GNAT, from 3.07 to 3.09). Of course, no GUI involved, but that's a whole different can of worms. >>Now C++ on the other hand, written using CodeWarrior 10 on a Mac, ported >>to CodeWarrior 10 on an IBM... or even MVC++ 4 vs MVC++ 5... or worse >>still CodeWarrior 9 on a Mac to CodeWarrior 10 on a Mac to MVC++ 5 on an >>IBM... In 15,000 LOCs of C++ how many would you reasonably expect to >>have to be changed? (yes, these were actual examples too) > >Note your choice of compiler. This has a lot to do with it. > >Now, using GCC. . . Do you always have control of what compiler you get to (have to) use? Besides, "porting" a program can just as easily mean moving it from one vendor's compiler to another on the same machine and OS because someone higher up decided it would be "better", as it can mean moving it to different machines and OSs. Larry