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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.236.202.143 with SMTP id d15mr242592yho.18.1403115898750; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:24:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.85.241 with SMTP id n104mr48557qgd.23.1403115898680; Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:24:58 -0700 (PDT) Path: border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!backlog3.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!i13no5695647qae.1!news-out.google.com!a8ni4126qaq.1!nntp.google.com!i13no5695645qae.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:24:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2.123.128.16; posting-account=L2-UcQkAAAAfd_BqbeNHs3XeM0jTXloS NNTP-Posting-Host: 2.123.128.16 References: <1402308235.2520.153.camel@pascal.home.net> <85ioo9yukk.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <255b51cd-b23f-4413-805a-9fea3c70d8b2@googlegroups.com> <5ebe316d-cd84-40fb-a983-9f953f205fef@googlegroups.com> <2100734262424129975.133931laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> <857442918424729589.090275laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Ada platforms and pricing, was: Re: a new language, designed for safety ! From: Lucretia Injection-Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 18:24:58 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Original-Bytes: 2416 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:187057 Date: 2014-06-18T11:24:58-07:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, 18 June 2014 18:34:35 UTC+1, Natasha Kerensikova wrote: > I wasn't aware of that. Suddenly the idea of a second free Ada compiler > seems within human grasp \o/ > > For some reason I'm much more frightened by parsing Ada text than by Parsing wouldn't be hard. It's the semantics that would be the hardest part, imo. > code generation. I know the latter is probably not easier than the > former (I'm aware of LLVM vs nested functions), but who said fright is > rational? You can flatten them out if the code generator doesn't have them. Luke