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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1d52a75fd633fefc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-02-16 07:45:46 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-04!supernews.com!feed.textport.net!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Ted Dennison Sender: usenet@www.newsranger.com References: <3A844255.24A4DBA3@lmco.com> <968vnc$5a2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A8C6843.B46006D6@lmco.com> Subject: Re: Ada to C++ translator? Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:44:57 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1 X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com X-Trace: www.newsranger.com 982338297 127.0.0.1 (Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:44:57 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:44:57 EST Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5305 Date: 2001-02-16T15:44:57+00:00 List-Id: In article <3A8C6843.B46006D6@lmco.com>, Robert Brantley says... >Ted Dennison wrote: > >> Most likely you'll just end up >> with the biggest mess the world has seen since my 3-year-old got into my >> old wargame boxes. > >I got mine buried in the closet so they can't get at them. That's what I thought too. :-( >We are re-using code from a legacy system, and we have spent a lot of >effort on binding this legacy Ada code to the RTOS we are using. As the >work >has progressed it has become increasing apparent how much work is involved >in mating the Ada code to the RTOS and the RTOS's development tools. A >great >deal of complexity could be cut out if we move the application code to the >RTOS >native language or it's derivative C++. Out of curiosity, what compiler and RTOS? Your Ada vendor ought to have bindings to the OS provided with the compiler. Even without them, C bindings are trivial to write, once you get the hang of it. Its certianly far less effort than a language port! And I don't see how having a C++ port is that going to help you the next time you port to a new system. Odds are you are actually *better off* right now with the Ada sources than you would have been with C++ sources. At least the Ada language itself is portable. C++ can't even say that much. The C++ porting guide for Mozilla forbids using quite a few *core* language features (templates, static constructors, exceptions, namespaces, among others) due to portability issues. You can see http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/portable-cpp.html for the whole list. If you *do* port to C++, you'd do well to read and follow it. >The ideal was to see if we could automate the process of conversion as much >as possible, we realize a 100%, or even 90%, mapping from one language to the >other is impossible. Good. You at least need to be somewhat realistic about what you are getting yourself into. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com