Re: C to ADA translators.

[news.crd.ge.com!e7sa!groleau@uunet.uu.net (Wes Groleau X7574)]

In article <1993Apr6.194350.12118@relay.nswc.navy.mil> bwallet@apssgi.nswc.navy
.mil (Brad Wallet) writes:
>In article <C52rx3.B67@crdnns.crd.ge.com>, groleau@e7sa.crd.ge.com (Wes Grolea
u X7574) writes:
>|> 1. I found some free code in C that meets 95% of my requirements.  I want
>|> to translate to Ada so that I have some hope of meeting the other 5% by my
>|> deadline.  (I was able to make a nice low bid because I knew about this cod
e.)
>
>Yep, that's what I am talking about.  Short cut to a quick profit produces
>an unmaintainable system.  How bad do you want it?  That's how bad your
>going to get it.

No, the shortest cut to a quick profit is to leave it in C and re-write the
requirements to eliminate the 5%.  Converting to Ada is the first step in
making the stuff maintainable.  If the resulting Ada is a mess, then the
sensible thing to do is start over and use Ada (unless it's throwaway code
anyway).  Besides, not all C code is unmaintainable ( just most of it :-) )
C programmers may control the market for garbage, but there's still plenty
of Ada programmers making a living at it.  Good software engineering is
possible in any language (even BASIC).  The fact that it is rare in certain
languages does not justify a blanket ban on looking at code written in 
those languages.