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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,583275b6950bf4e6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930
X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-05-01 08:16:12 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.gbronline.com!news.gbronline.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 10:16:12 -0500
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 10:16:35 -0500
From: Wesley Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com>
Reply-To: wesgroleau@despammed.com
Organization: Ain't no organization here!
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US;
 rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, es-mx, pt-br, fr-ca
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Using Ada for device drivers? (Was: the Ada mandate, and why
 it collapsed and died)
References: <9fa75d42.0304230424.10612b1a@posting.google.com>
 <rVzpa.583781$3D1.323774@sccrnsc01>
 <9fa75d42.0304240446.493ca906@posting.google.com> <3EA7E0E3.8020407@crs4.it>
 <9fa75d42.0304240950.45114a39@posting.google.com>
 <4a885870.0304291909.300765f@posting.google.com>
 <416273D61ACF7FEF.82C1D1AC17296926.FF0BFD4934A03813@lp.airnews.net>
 <4a885870.0304300431.49a61bfa@posting.google.com>
 <b8p0of$pjs$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
 <4a885870.0304301937.b27ec47@posting.google.com>
 <b8r3hu$m8$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>
In-Reply-To: <b8r3hu$m8$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <jtScnQs6eZKhpyyjXTWcrg@gbronline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.117.18.74
X-Trace: 
 sv3-indhfRFr1jgqiuhkxKn3yU7NL83evS6uie1wcv6QiFkbiB4nEBJwuwEEOulhGKYEYSJ5yrAqlVOJemS!DH5jF6rZFyZwxmeMYBsWQjXEhSu1K/U6Zm9HFmn8S3b+2P8oVoxpvxi6vhBOGb/2RmJ5AlhWQgP+!lb4g
X-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:62982 comp.object:62470
 comp.lang.ada:36809
Date: 2003-05-01T10:16:35-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


> 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

Maybe.  But it's possible that:

  - some of the features of Ada might allow greater optimization
    In the case of _some_ chess algorithms, a slightly faster
    execution could win the game, because they give up evaluating
    options when a certain wall-time limit is reached.

  - some of the features of Ada might detect bugs, causing them
    to be corrected.

On the other hand, as you said, there are various other reasons
why a rewrite is probably not a good idea.