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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,92892151eecb310d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-20 02:56:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!pogner.demon.co.uk!zap!not-for-mail From: Simon Wright Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Porting Ada to C (Stealth development) Date: 19 Jan 2002 07:32:56 +0000 Organization: Pushface Message-ID: References: <3C48661F.9C0F316B@otelco.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1011524132 nnrp-13:2062 NO-IDENT pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Jan 2002 07:33:00 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19118 Date: 2002-01-19T07:33:00+00:00 List-Id: tmoran@acm.org writes: > > > > The few times I have been required to write in C, I wrote Ada anyway. > > > Why implement it twice? This increases the chance for errors and is more work. > > Actually the Ada code I wrote probably wasn't compilable anyway > > (more like pseudo code), > I've written and debugged in Ada, then transliterated to a C > deliverable. It was faster than trying to get it running in C in the > first place. Once it was translated, of course, any further changes > were strictly in the C version. Ada to assembler, in my case, in about 1984. The Ada was the documentation, so of course it had to change (don't know what the maintainers are doing now, don't think it's been touched for years ..) I don't remember how many defects there were in the assembler as-coded, but there was only one in the assembler as-delivered. I was very proud of that.