Re: Ada compiler using a M2 compiler as back-end

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:02:43 +0100, Ludovic Brenta  
<ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> a écrit:
> Actually this is a rendition of a post here on comp.lang.ada 16 years
> ago:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.modula3/browse_thread/thread/f07b9c63c348974b/6c76347a49e42768?lnk=gst&q=Ada+versus+Modula3#6c76347a49e42768
>
> The entire thread is interesting.
Yes, interesting (still readin).

An interesting quote among other interesting replies.

> When reviewing design tradeoffs of any artifact, I think it is alwaysa  
> good question to ask "At what cost?". I think we should also askthis  
> question in review of Ada95 and Modula-3's designs. At what costsdo they  
> achieve their results?If a design is simple, we must ask, at what cost  
> have the designersachieved this? Does the design miss some important  
> uses to be expectedfrom the artifact? Does the design specify enough?If  
> a design incorporates many features, then we must ask again, atwhat cost  
> was this achieved? How many pages are the specifications?How compliant  
> are the implementations to the full specification?  Isthe design  
> overspecified?Looking at the design for Modula-3, I'd say that the  
> designers aimedat simplicity, safety, and completeness in *that order*.  
> From what Iknow about Ada, its design tends to follow the opposite order.

He finished with this, but when he say “simpler”, keep in mind what he  
said above about the cost and order of aspects.

> I thinkthe difference in the languages reflects this point more than  
> anythingelse: Modula-3 achieves Ada95's (or C++'s) power with a  
> definitionthat is about *an order of magnitude* simpler.

-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University