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 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada platforms and pricing, was: Re: a new language, designed for safety ! Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 18:26:40 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1403479601 12549 69.95.181.76 (22 Jun 2014 23:26:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 23:26:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:20536 Date: 2014-06-22T18:26:40-05:00 List-Id: I don't see anything obviously wrong with this plan. As you probably can tell, I'm no fan of ASIS (it's way too syntax based for the sorts of uses I would want to put it toward), but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad starting point, especially if you're more familar with using it in practice than I am. You will have to be prepared to maintain the GELA ASIS code, because you're inevitiably going to hit bugs in it. Randy. "Natasha Kerensikova" wrote in message news:slrnlqagv4.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu... > On 2014-06-20, Randy Brukardt wrote: >> "Natasha Kerensikova" wrote in message >> news:slrnlq7oge.i0l.lithiumcat@nat.rebma.instinctive.eu... >> ... >>> The way I understand the whole situation is that ASIS provider diversity >>> would be a good thing too (though not as much as compiler diversity), >>> and Gela is not too far from there, so pushing Gela forward would be a >>> good thing both globally and for my self-improvement. >> >> That would work, of course, but all of the hard stuff (well, almost all) >> would be in the GELA ASIS front-end. And you'd have to do frequent >> maintenance on the ASIS stuff if you wanted to actually compile Ada (as >> almost every bug would be in the ASIS part). It certainly could work, but >> it >> would mean having to understand the GELA ASIS code in detail (not just >> the >> interface). For me, I'd rather fix my own code than someone else's. > > Funnily, it's the first time I'm warned against re-using code instead of > re-writing it, usually I'm warned against re-writing instead of > re-using. > > The thing is, writing an ASIS provider is still frightening me, and I > really thing it's not something I can complete by myself. And if I drop > a re-write attempt, it's a pure loss. > > On the other hand, fixing Gela for Adacontrol is within human reach, and > it's already a gain by itself, and might be the best way to assess how > comfortable I would feel about maintaining Gela in Adacontrol and/or > compiler (or other ASIS users) versus starting a new ASIS provider from > scratch. > >>> If that succeeds, it might be a good start for an independent Ada >>> compiler, or I might have acquired the certainty that it's not. Then the >>> ASIS-to-LLVM-intermediate-form vs brand-new-parser-to-LLVM-IF situation >>> will be much easier to assess, and in the meantime I will have acquired >>> knowledge and skills that are valuable for both paths. >>> >>> Sounds good? >> >> Sounds possible. "Good" only applies if it works out and something useful >> comes out of it. :-) Else it's just effort that could have been used on >> something working. > > I meant "does such a plan sound good?". Of course you can't assess > result goodness without knowing how everything turns out. Unfortunately, > decisions have to be taken without knowing how everything turns out. > However, as far as I plans go, it seems I have enough checkpoints and > fallbacks to minimize effort loss while still moving towards meaningful > goals, unless I'm missing something (and my question is really "with > your experience in such endeavors, do you see something I'm missing?"). > > > Thanks for your insights, > Natasha