Re: Looking for Ada to C++ translator

[alex@MIMSY.CS.UMD.EDU (Alex Blakemore)]

In article <1993Feb19.184849.20853@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com 
(fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> Rewriting lets you use the strengths of the new
> language, plus you get something you can maintain out the other side.
> This applies to *any* conversion.  The only time to do it is if you
> don't have any other options.  Otherwise, it's cheaper and easier to
> just rewrite.

I see everybody believes in the great reuse dogma around here.

One alternative worth considering is to leave some modules that work
and dont need change in the old language, write others and the new language,
build a binding and be happy.

Bindings can at least be partially constructed automatically with reasonable re
sults.
see the c2ada package at sgi.com by Mark Schimmel for a good example.
It still needs work afterwards but it cuts down alot of the tedium.

This approach is often fast to market and a reasonable compromise technically.
People too often fear mixed language development but with a little care its
often fairly painless - probably much less pain than translating alot of 
software that really didnt have to be translated.

But I agree, if you cant build a binding and call the old code.
Develop in the new language - dont translate mechanically.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------
Alex Blakemore alex@cs.umd.edu   NeXT mail accepted