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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ca0b11ae1c9a00cb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: Papers saying Ada as an overly complex language and hard to
 implement
Date: 1998/02/16
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980216123342.22587A-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 325648629
References: <34E7B551.115C289F@cs.utexas.edu> <dewar.887600858@merv>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: 887661850 4819 bpr  206.184.139.132
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-02-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


On 15 Feb 1998, Robert Dewar wrote:
> ... Robert's take on the overloading of "simple" deleted ...
> 
> As for "hard to write a compiler for", Ada is no more difficult than
> any of these other languages. These days the really hard part of any compiler
> is doing a good job of optimizing the object code on modern 
> architectures, and this is about the same effort for any language.

While this is not a field I know very well, I was under the impression
that it is in general easier to do a good job optimizing Ada than C or 
C++, due to the restrictions on access types amongst others. Was I
mistaken?

Also, the C++ grammar is tricky, you could almost say that it has made 
parsing a reasonable research topic again :-).

-- Brian