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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922 X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-01 05:22:25 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada,misc.misc Subject: Re: Using Ada for device drivers? (Was: the Ada mandate, and why it collapsed and died) Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 08:21:25 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com> <9fa75d42.0304240446.493ca906@posting.google.com> <3EA7E0E3.8020407@crs4.it> <9fa75d42.0304240950.45114a39@posting.google.com> <4a885870.0304291909.300765f@posting.google.com> <416273D61ACF7FEF.82C1D1AC17296926.FF0BFD4934A03813@lp.airnews.net> <4a885870.0304300431.49a61bfa@posting.google.com> <4a885870.0304301937.b27ec47@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.b9.d6 X-Server-Date: 1 May 2003 12:22:22 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:62974 comp.object:62463 comp.lang.ada:36800 misc.misc:13856 Date: 2003-05-01T12:22:22+00:00 List-Id: Will wrote in message news:4a885870.0304301937.b27ec47@posting.google.com... > According to Mr Meiners, Ada addicts should never attempt to rewrite > any chess programs in Ada. Apparently if you do, your program will not > do better than a C program with the same algorithm. > > According to some experts (me), rewriting *any* program in *any* language is mostly a waste of time. :-) You need to ask what is gained by building the thing twice? Maybe, possibly, sometimes, you have a buggy program that might benefit from being rewritten because you want the functionality but not the bugs. Changing languages (to Ada) might also help reduce the bugs. But if you are going to go that far, why not build a *new* program that does more or otherwise grows from the experience. And it also seems intuitively obvious that executing the same algorithm in a different language ought to yield the same result, correct? So why would an Ada addict want to rewrite a chess program that (presumably) already works well? MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds." -- H. Simpson ======================================================================