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: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Papers saying Ada as an overly complex language and hard to
 implement
Date: 1998/02/16
Message-ID: <dewar.887669672@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 325687318
References: <34E7B551.115C289F@cs.utexas.edu> <dewar.887600858@merv>
 <Pine.BSF.3.96.980216123342.22587A-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 887669961 14126 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-02-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Brian says

<<While this is not a field I know very well, I was under the impression
that it is in general easier to do a good job optimizing Ada than C or
C++, due to the restrictions on access types amongst others. Was I
mistaken?

Also, the C++ grammar is tricky, you could almost say that it has made
parsing a reasonable research topic again :-).
>>

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).

But that is more about the results of the compiler, rather than the
difficulty of writing a compiler. To a reasonable first approximation, 
writing an Ada compiler is about as easy/hard as writing a C++ compiler.

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.