Ada2C++

Ada2C++

[BRETTSYS1]

Does anyone know if there is a utility that will take Ada95 source and convert
it into C++ source? 

Thanks
brett

brettsys1@aol.com

Re: Ada2C++

[Brian Rogoff]

On 9 Jan 2000, BRETTSYS1 wrote:
> Does anyone know if there is a utility that will take Ada95 source and convert
> it into C++ source? 

Averstar/Intermetrics offers an Ada->C compiler I think, and it is claimed
that it generates readable C source. 

If you want something which translates Ada 95 into human usable C++, using 
corresponding concepts in C++ to Ada ones, and concurrency libraries to 
handle Ada concurrency, I know of no such tool accept a human programmer 
who knows both languages. 

-- Brian

Re: Ada2C++

[Ross]

There ought to be such a tool since all language features that I can think of off
the top of my head have an approximate equivalent in both languages.  Maybe that
just goes to show how divergent the industry is with those using Ada having no
interest in or  need for  C++ and vica versa.  Maybe someone would like to knock
something up for Brett before they go home tonight.....
R.

Brian Rogoff wrote:

> On 9 Jan 2000, BRETTSYS1 wrote:
> > Does anyone know if there is a utility that will take Ada95 source and convert
> > it into C++ source?
>
> Averstar/Intermetrics offers an Ada->C compiler I think, and it is claimed
> that it generates readable C source.
>
> If you want something which translates Ada 95 into human usable C++, using
> corresponding concepts in C++ to Ada ones, and concurrency libraries to
> handle Ada concurrency, I know of no such tool accept a human programmer
> who knows both languages.
>
> -- Brian

Re: Ada2C++

[Jeff Carter]

In article <387A1122.4769ED21@gec.com>,
  Ross <@gec.com> wrote:
> There ought to be such a tool since all language features that I can
think of off
> the top of my head have an approximate equivalent in both languages...

Apparently you can't think of tasking off the top of your head.

--
Jeff Carter
"Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time."
-- Monty Python and the Holy Grail


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

Re: Ada2C++

[Tucker Taft]

BRETTSYS1 wrote:
> 
> Does anyone know if there is a utility that will take Ada95 source and convert
> it into C++ source?

As mentioned in another note, we have compilation technology that does
some of this.  We offer a service, where we will convert Ada to
C/C++ (it is configurable whether we use any C++ features in the output).
The output includes the original Ada comments and the original Ada
variables names, etc.  We take advantage of the C++ "namespace" feature
if requested.  The code is properly indented, and makes use of C control
structures like while, switch, etc.  This translation service is priced on a 
per-thousand-line-of-code basis.  Contact us for more details.

We also have a version of our Ada95 compiler that uses optimized ANSI C
as its intermediate representation.  This allows you to continue
to program in Ada indefinitely, while using an off-the-shelf C compiler
to do the final object code generation.  This allows you to use Ada
on platforms where there is no other Ada offering, and/or allows
you to integrate easily with other code being written in C or C++.
There are validated versions of this AdaMagic-with-C-intermediate
compiler for Analog Devices SHARC/Eonic Virtuoso and for Sun SPARC/Solaris.

We have an analogous offering that uses Java byte codes as its intermediate
representation, with similar benefits.

> 
> Thanks
> brett
> 
> brettsys1@aol.com

-- 
-Tucker Taft   stt@averstar.com   http://www.averstar.com/~stt/
Technical Director, Distributed IT Solutions  (www.averstar.com/tools)
AverStar (formerly Intermetrics, Inc.)   Burlington, MA  USA

Re: Ada2C++

[jedilowe]

I will say that I think the intermediate C and Java representations are
brilliant for extending the marketing ability, though I can imagine some
of the battles with hard performance criteria prophets over layers of
abstraction.  My question though, If Ada 95 has such powerful interface
capabilities to other languages, why is translation even a question?
Is the interface between languages more of a concept, not actually been
realized in toolsets?

I am familiar of a great deal of success interfacing Ada 83 code with
Jovial, where the Ada code acts as the executive and the Jovial is the
legacy operations, but this is not accomplished using a commercial
compiler, or hardware platform.  The 'interfacability' is a big
advantage for the sellability for some of my customers, so it would be
nice to know if it is not all that realisitic in the large before a
benefit becomes a blemish if it does not live up to the promises.

Thanks

Tony


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

Re: Ada2C++

[David Starner]

On Tue, 01 Feb 2000 03:09:26 GMT, jedilowe@my-deja.com <jedilowe@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I will say that I think the intermediate C and Java representations are
>brilliant for extending the marketing ability, though I can imagine some
>of the battles with hard performance criteria prophets over layers of
>abstraction.  My question though, If Ada 95 has such powerful interface
>capabilities to other languages, why is translation even a question?

The Ada2C compiler is mainly for platforms where there is no native
Ada compiler yet. I've never heard of an Ada2Java compiler - the
one's I've heard about compile to the JVM. That may seem nitpicking,
but it helps to look at it as a port to a new platform, one that
happens to have emulators all over the place. 

Notice that neither of these are about interface capabilities.
Ada2C has the same Interfaces.C support that most Ada compilers
have. Ada2JVM still needs an Interfaces.Java and some glue,
and that could be added to any Ada compiler with a Java
compiler to the same platform. (That is,a native code Java 
compiler.)

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
If you wish to strive for peace of soul then believe; 
if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire.
   -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Re: Ada2C++

[Richard D Riehle]

>On Tue, 01 Feb 2000 03:09:26 GMT, jedilowe@my-deja.com <jedilowe@my
deja.com> wrote:
>>  My question though, If Ada 95 has such powerful interface
>>capabilities to other languages, why is translation even a question?

Ada is a high-level language.  C is a low-level language, closer to
being a universal assembler.  As such, translating to C sometimes 
makes it easier to generate the intermediate code that can be 
compiled to executable on a given platform.  This approach is taken
by other high-level languages, notably, Eiffel.

There is a danger, though. C is less reliable than one might hope.
There a lots of little gotchas.  For example, direct translation to
C from some strongly-typed high-level language can run into problems
such as the famous integer overflow feature.  For validated Ada, this
is not a problem since a compiler that fails to accomodate this error
from C would not pass validation.  For current Eiffel compilers this
is still a problem.  

Translation from one language to another is always a perilous 
undertaking.  We use the word undertaking here in all of its
meanings, including those that reflect morbidity.

Richard Riehle
richard@adaworks.com

Re: Ada2C++

[jedilowe]

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.

Re: Ada2C++

[Frode Tenneboe]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 499 bytes --]

BRETTSYS1 (brettsys1@aol.com) wrote:
: Does anyone know if there is a utility that will take Ada95 source and convert
: it into C++ source? 

To be honest: The other way around is much more appealing.

 -Frode

--
^ Frode Tenneb�                    | email: ft@edh.ericsson.se      ^
| Ericsson Radar AS. N-1788 Halden |                                |
| Phone: +47 69 21 41 47           | Frode@IRC                      |
| with Standard.Disclaimer; use Standard.Disclaimer;                |

Re: Ada2C++

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Frode Tenneboe wrote:

> BRETTSYS1 (brettsys1@aol.com) wrote:
> : Does anyone know if there is a utility
> : that will take Ada95 source and convert it into C++ source?
>
> To be honest: The other way around is much more appealing.

No.  I don't think you'd like that.

Re: Ada2C++

[Frode Tenneboe]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 754 bytes --]

E. Robert Tisdale (edwin@netwood.net) wrote:
: Frode Tenneboe wrote:

: > BRETTSYS1 (brettsys1@aol.com) wrote:
: > : Does anyone know if there is a utility
: > : that will take Ada95 source and convert it into C++ source?
: >
: > To be honest: The other way around is much more appealing.

: No.  I don't think you'd like that.

Provided, of course, that the resulting output is smaller, easier to
read and produces code which can be better optimised. :-)

 -Frode

--
^ Frode Tenneb�                    | email: ft@edh.ericsson.se      ^
| Ericsson Radar AS. N-1788 Halden |                                |
| Phone: +47 69 21 41 47           | Frode@IRC                      |
| with Standard.Disclaimer; use Standard.Disclaimer;                |

Re: Ada2C++

[Charles Hixson]

"E. Robert Tisdale" wrote:

> Frode Tenneboe wrote:
>
> > BRETTSYS1 (brettsys1@aol.com) wrote:
> > : Does anyone know if there is a utility
> > : that will take Ada95 source and convert it into C++ source?
> >
> > To be honest: The other way around is much more appealing.
>
> No.  I don't think you'd like that.

The only reason that I might not like it is that most translators
produce very ugly code.
OTOH, I believe that I might be quite difficult to do this properly
for more than a small subset of the C++ language.  Anything that
involves recasting pointers, e.g., should refuse to translate.

ada2cpp

[denizbey]

check this

http://ada2cpp.co.il/

Deniz
--


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

Re: ada2cpp

[Pat Rogers]

<denizbey@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:86s1sc$1ei$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> check this
>
> http://ada2cpp.co.il/

Humm, a (partial) Ada83 to C++ translator.   The Ada code obviously
works, otherwise it isn't worth translating.

For some unusual situation, fine.  But for the fad chasers, IMHO a
product that requires stupidity on the part of management is both sad
and very likely to wildly succeed.

Re: ada2cpp

[Richard D Riehle]

In article <s93a1sm9q0s153@corp.supernews.com>,
	"Pat Rogers" <progers@NOclasswideSPAM.com> wrote:

>For some unusual situation, fine.  But for the fad chasers, IMHO a
>product that requires stupidity on the part of management is both sad
>and very likely to wildly succeed.

Pat.  There are a lot of stupid C++ chasers out there.  I have even
been told by one manager that [paraphrasing] "Ada is probably a better
language, but we have to move to C++ so we can hire programmers and find
tools."  Anyone who would choose C++ over Ada in the pursuit of reliable
software either 1) does not understand C++ or 2) does not understand Ada,
or 3) does not understand either one, or 3) has agenda that has nothing to
do with technological excellence.

Richard Riehle
richard@adaworks.com
 

Re: ada2cpp

[Gautier]

> check this
> http://ada2cpp.co.il/

I like the basic "Price := 20_000$  --  U.S. dollars" for a "not 100% automatic" tool,
where "Ada tasks are not supported"!
How can it compete with a famous free translator
- the one that translates all Ada 83 and 95 directly into optimized native machine code ?
Is it a thing for bluffing pointy haired bosses ?...

-- 
Gautier

_____\\________________\_______\
http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/

Re: ada2cpp

[Marin D. Condic]

Gautier wrote:
> 
> > check this
> > http://ada2cpp.co.il/
> 
> I like the basic "Price := 20_000$  --  U.S. dollars" for a "not 100% automatic" tool,
> where "Ada tasks are not supported"!
> How can it compete with a famous free translator
> - the one that translates all Ada 83 and 95 directly into optimized native machine code ?
> Is it a thing for bluffing pointy haired bosses ?...
> 
And call it Ada2asm? Sounds like a great idea to me! The only problem
being the obvious: too many competing standards for the "asm" part.

MDC
-- 
=============================================================
Marin David Condic   - Quadrus Corporation -   1.800.555.3393
1015-116 Atlantic Boulevard, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
http://www.quadruscorp.com/
m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m

Visit my web site at:  http://www.mcondic.com/

"Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin." 
        --  Allan Meltzer, Economist 
=============================================================

Re: ada2cpp

[Ted Dennison]

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.

Re: ada2cpp

[David]

In article <86sn03$hmj$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
Where did you ever get that idea?
Here is a small excerpt from the GNAT User's Guide, titled obscurely
enough "Compiling Ada 83 Programs"

Compiling Ada 83 Programs
-gnat83
Although GNAT is primarily an Ada 95 compiler, it accepts this switch
to specify that an Ada 83 program is to be compiled in Ada83 mode. If
you specify this switch, GNAT rejects most Ada 95 extensions and
applies Ada 83 semantics where this can be done easily. It is not
possible to guarantee this switch does a perfect job; for example, some
subtle tests, such as are found in earlier ACVC tests (that have been
removed from the ACVC suite for Ada 95), may not compile correctly.
However, for most purposes, using this switch should help to ensure
that programs that compile correctly under the -gnat83 switch can be
ported easily to an Ada 83 compiler. This is the main use of the
switch. With few exceptions (most notably the need to use <> on
unconstrained generic formal parameters, the use of the new Ada 95
keywords, and the use of packages with optional bodies), it is not
necessary to use the -gnat83 switch when compiling Ada 83 programs,
because, with rare exceptions, Ada 95 is upwardly compatible with Ada
83. This means that a correct Ada 83 program is usually also a correct
Ada 95 program.
-gnat95
This switch specifies normal Ada 95 mode, and cancels the effect of any
previously given -gnat83 switch.


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

Re: ada2cpp

[Ted Dennison]

In article <86svea$oal$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  David C. Hoos, Sr. <david.c.hoos.sr@ada95.com> wrote:
> In article <86sn03$hmj$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>   Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
> > Gnat doesn't compile Ada83 code, just Ada 95.
> >
> Where did you ever get that idea?

By reading the Gnat docs (and actually using it on a project once):
> you specify this switch, GNAT rejects most Ada 95 extensions and
> applies Ada 83 semantics where this can be done easily. It is not
> possible to guarantee this switch does a perfect job; for example,
some
> subtle tests, such as are found in earlier ACVC tests (that have been
> removed from the ACVC suite for Ada 95), may not compile correctly.

Another way to look at it is, "Is this switch intended to allow me to
compile working Ada 83 code under gnat?" Here's the answer to that:
> However, for most purposes, using this switch should help to ensure
> that programs that compile correctly under the -gnat83 switch can be
> ported easily to an Ada 83 compiler. This is the main use of the
> switch.

It is useful for some source compatability purposes. But it does *not*
put Gnat into a mode where it is an Ada83 compiler.

--
T.E.D.

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


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

Re: ada2cpp

[Gautier]

> It is useful for some source compatability purposes. But it does *not*
> put Gnat into a mode where it is an Ada83 compiler.

Anyway, be reassured: the 83->95 upward compatilibility is ~99.995%.

I did port a >100'000 lines program from Alsys (Ada 83) to
GNAT, without ever using the -gnat83.

There were +/- 5 lines to change:
 - a pragma Elaborate_body in 1 package
 - generic_elementary_functions to Ada.(the same)
 - a 1 place, GNAT couldn't decide between
   character and wide_character (a loop).

That's all!

For my own projects in numerics I have plenty of packages
that travel from DEC Ada (83) to GNAT and vice versa
without any change...

-- 
Gautier

_____\\________________\_______\
http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/

Re: ada2cpp

[Ted Dennison]

denizbey@my-deja.com wrote:

> http://ada2cpp.co.il/

Not a bad piece of work (Ada to C++ translator). But I hope you first
tell your customers that they would be better off translating to Ada95,
and possibly using the Intermetrics compiler that targets C if they
don't have an Ada compiler available. Otherwise, this line of work seems
to be the software equivalent of hawking cigarettes. Sure your customers
may outright demand it. But you're not exactly doing them or the world a
service by giving it to them.

It would be interesting to see this move towards being an actual
compiler like the Intermetrics one, though.

--
T.E.D.

Home - mailto:dennison@telepath.com  Work - mailto:dennison@ssd.fsi.com
WWW  - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html  ICQ  - 10545591