From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,aea4cc77526f5e4a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!newsfeed1.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!news.binc.net!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Separate Compilation in Programming Languages Date: 22 Feb 2008 13:33:53 -0600 Organization: LJK Software Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1203708747 29812 192.135.80.34 (22 Feb 2008 19:32:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:32:27 +0000 (UTC) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19987 Date: 2008-02-22T13:33:53-06:00 List-Id: In article , writes: > Recently, I have been engaged in some conversations with colleagues about the > value of > separate compilation. This is one of my favorite features in Ada. In fact, > as nearly as > I can tell, none of the other popular languages includes this feature in as > well-developed > a form as Ada. Java has no separate compilation at all. Nor does Eiffel. > C++ has a > rather kludgy form that is sometimes worse than none at all. Modula includes > a form > of separate compilation, but requires opaque types. Older languages such as > PL/I, > COBOL, and Fortran are pretty useless in this respect. VMS Pascal has support for separate compilation, with data types coming from one or more common source files and correspondence between compilations checked at link time. I do not know how many of those features come from the latest Pascal Standard.