Re: Ada to C++ translator?

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen <ohk@clustra.com>]

"Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> writes:

> "Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen" <ohk@clustra.com> wrote in message
> news:umqlmr09ui2.fsf@gong10.clustra.com...
> : "Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> writes:

<snip>

> :
> : Seriously, what is your opinion on today's thread support in Ada?
> 
> Do you mean for a particular compiler/target pair, or tasking at the
> language level? As to the former, you'd have to tell me the particular
> context before I could give an intelligent answer (which was one of the
> points of my previous post :). As to the latter, I don't see anything
> inherent in the language that prevents a compiler from doing what you want
> (particularly now that protected objects are available). There would likely
> have to be some restrictions placed on the form of the task; see section D.7
> of the Ada Rationale for examples. Of course, you can usually use
> alternatives to Ada tasking, such as direct calls to a POSIX-compliant
> run-time a la C as well, so it's certainly no worse that what you'll get in
> other languages.
> 
> 

I was thinking at the language level. As you point out yourself, there
is nothing inherent in the language that prevents a compiler from
doing what I want, but the problem is much like garbage
collection. It's allowed, but you cannot count on it being there, so
your programs will not really be portable to another platform or
compiler if you use it.  

I agree that it's no better in other languages.

-- 
Kabelsalat ist gesund.

Ole-Hj. Kristensen