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: 103376,4fe4dfa1b8acdbe4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: gnat310p on NT Date: 1998/08/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 381668174 References: <01bdc744$cef04bc0$0e2915c0@w95> <0QXRrq2x9GA.123@samson.airnet.net> X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 903281180 20931 (None) 128.122.140.58 Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-08-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Andi asks <<> As I say, the conditions vary. In the case of the Realia COBOL compiler, > the code generator was a single 35,000 line file. Not because, contrary > to typical uninformed opinion, COBOL has no nice way of breaking things up > into multiple files, but because only one person ever worked on this file > (me) and it took only 20 seconds to compile on a slowish (386 25 MHz) PC > which was quite acceptable. You don't want to say with this that the code generator was writen in COBOL? >> I am not quite sure of the sense of Andi's question, but yes, the Realia COBOL compiler is 100% written in COBOL, and so yes of course, the code generator is written in COBOL.