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!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada 2012 Constraints (WRT an Ada IR)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 16:15:05 -0600
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <o1q7bg$9cp$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <c06ee4e6-d616-4e01-ba2e-cb111a81f6f6@googlegroups.com>
 <o1jdgk$tja$1@dont-email.me>
 <92ed75e9-baae-455c-9e34-53348dc6eaef@googlegroups.com>
 <o1kpbo$rni$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <b777d7e3-4779-4566-b741-8617a9501fd0@googlegroups.com>
 <o1kqk9$tmk$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <e5adb2c3-f526-4152-9ec9-6e4182e18825@googlegroups.com>
 <o1m2oi$g8l$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <03847fd7-5699-48de-bb3c-ef5512398f26@googlegroups.com>
 <ea8r0aFnr4kU1@mid.individual.net>
 <f3fbdf99-6ba6-4108-95dd-203a84a885ae@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: franka.jacob-sparre.dk 1480630448 9625 24.196.82.226 (1 Dec 2016
 22:14:08 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 22:14:08 +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:32550
Date: 2016-12-01T16:15:05-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Shark8" <onewingedshark@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:f3fbdf99-6ba6-4108-95dd-203a84a885ae@googlegroups.com...
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 1:26:52 PM UTC-7, Niklas Holsti wrote:
...
>That's different than the thrust I'm going for; IMO, DIANA was a solid 
>idea,
>but hampered by the facts that (a) they chose to rate source-code
>retrieval/regeneration so highly; (b) it was defined as an ADT, but not
>particularly presented as one^1; (c) low adoption-rate of compilers and 
>tools.^2

DIANA was far too memory intensive for the benefits (not obvious) that it 
had. On many host machines of the time, there simply wasn't the memory to 
hold an entire decorated program in memory at once, and working around that 
would slow a compiler down a lot (one would have to make the structure 
disk-based, and disks were a lot slower back then, too). That's especially 
true for dealing with non-local units ("with").

Other, less memory intensive organizations provided faster compilation; and 
as I noted before, most of the interesting stuff happens on the low-level IR 
and its translation to machine code. So I'm not at all surprised that it 
didn't get used much. ASIS is really the second generation of DIANA, and its 
better - especially more abstract - but still a long way from what I'd 
consider ideal.

                                       Randy.