Re: Ada2C++

[jedilowe@my-deja.com]

Just to clarify,  I am not disputing the idea of translating to an
intermediate representation for a greater scope of usability, but it
sounded like the question was directed at translating and updating.  I
worked on a project that had 20 developers spend 9 weeks translating
from a specialized 1970's language into Ada.  Basically, the entire
effort was a political manuvering (though a very expensive one) but the
result was pretty useless.  Unless the design and context are identical,
it does not make sense to translate, because it does not address the
most difficult part of coding, fixing.  Basically, the developers still
had to go learn every bit of the functionality to be able to fix it, and
most ended up rewriting what was there and just called it reuse.  The
question comes down to, how solid is the existing code.  The translation
is only successful if it is very solid, and then the question is, why
not interface instead of translate?

The question I had, is the multi-language interface in the same linked
executable widely used?  Is it universally successful, or does it depend
on each of the variants (e.g. platform, compilers, linker...)?   Thanks
for the response though.

Tony


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