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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DEAR_SOMETHING, 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: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Papers saying Ada as an overly complex language and hard to implement Date: 1998/02/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 325436474 References: <34E7B551.115C289F@cs.utexas.edu> X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 887601207 16493 (None) 128.122.140.58 Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: <> Two comments here. First, what does complex mean here? Presumably it is in the sense of not-simple. But simple can mean very different things Simple to learn Simple to use Simple to describe informally Simple to define formally Simple to implement These five aspects are not only different, but mutually incompatible. For example, these days, it is generally perceived that languages need to be fairly feature rich (Ada 95, C++, Fortran 90, OO COBOL, ...) to be simple to use. Even Java is pretty feature rich, especially if you include its standard libraries. 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. So I don't know if you can find the papers you are looking for, or what you need them for, but papers that meet your criteria are likely to be bogus. (if they exist:-)