Re: ada2cpp

[Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <3891AD32.EA362750@maths.unine.ch>,
  Gautier <gautier.demontmollin@maths.unine.ch> wrote:
> > check this
> > http://ada2cpp.co.il/
>
> How can it compete with a famous free translator
> - the one that translates all Ada 83 and 95 directly into optimized
> native machine code ?

Gnat doesn't compile Ada83 code, just Ada 95.

Given that Ada 83 is now an obsolete standard, there are probably a lot
of less technical managers out there thinking, "If I have to port the
code anyway, why not port it to {insert fad language here} instead of
Ada 95?". Of course the truth is porting to Ada95 is usually trivial,
porting to C++ is often incredibly difficult, and code maintianed in C++
is liable to be significantly buggier. And who knows how much damage to
profits, property, and/or life one of those extra bugs may cause?

But agreeing with people who employ (or want to employ) you is a lot
easier than disabusing them. I can see a tremendous business oppertunity
here, for someone who has no moral qualms about doing harm to their own
customers if asked to by those same customers. In many lines of
engineering there's an explicit code of ethics that this would violate,
but not software!

--
T.E.D.

http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.