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 Subject: Re: Papers saying Ada as an overly complex language and hard to implement Date: 1998/02/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 325696883 References: <34E7B551.115C289F@cs.utexas.edu> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: 887673273 15695 bpr 206.184.139.132 Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 16 Feb 1998, Robert Dewar wrote: > The question was about the difficulty of writing compilers. There are > some things that are easier to optimize in Ada, and somethings that are > harder (e.g. the result of separaqtely compiling subunits). Sure, I was pursuing a more interesting (to me) line of questioning about whether Ada allowed more optimizations in general than C++. > As for C++ grammar being tricky, not really, parsing is a very small part > of the problem (and relatively easy) in both cases, I don't see a difference > here of any significance. Agreed that parsing is "in the noise", but I think the difficulty of writing a correct parser which handles all of C++ is well known. That's a question which comes up on the compiler newsgroup frequently, and so far I don't think there is a freely available or PD parser which handles anything beyond ATT v2.x. Also, parsers are used in other source analysis programs than compilers, so the ease of writing a parser for a language has some impact on other tools. -- Brian