Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?
in [ADA]
|
Prev: Symbolic tracebacks on Debian (Was: About static libraries and Debian policy)
Next: Gnat cross compiler
From: J-P. Rosen on 25 May 2010 12:15 Georg Bauhaus a écrit : > Yes. Ada/Ed, though, being an Ada 83 interpreter, being > written in SETL, not C, and being prototypical for GNAT, > indicates that C is not necessarily the single language for > writing high class compilers---as some have implied. > I'm sure you know that is the case for some other languages, > too. In most programming languages, there is a relation between the structure of the language itself and the kind of data it handles best. For this reason, and others like ease of porting, it is generally a good idea to write the compiler in its own language, safe for special cases like initial bootstrapping. -- --------------------------------------------------------- J-P. Rosen (rosen(a)adalog.fr) Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr
From: Nomen Nescio on 25 May 2010 12:24 > Would they all have been using C (K&R C, that is) on non-C > platforms nevertheless, for implementing their compilers? It depends much on the platform. On UNIX, everything was unquestionably written in C, on IBM, unquestionably in assembler. Other platforms, I don't know. I wasn't arguing C is a good choice for anything, nor is C++. I'm a proud Ada bigot like most posters :-) I see no purpose for C or C++ except if you are a UNIX coder, because those OS are written using C.
From: Warren on 25 May 2010 12:55 =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= expounded in news:op.vc2xkdarule2fv(a)garhos: > Le Sat, 22 May 2010 01:05:33 +0200, Duke Normandin > <dukeofperl(a)ml1.net> a écrit: >> Nothing too terribly mind-boggling! ;) Just don't want to spend the >> ti > me >> learning a "soon-to-be" fossil of a language, with no where to go but > in >> a >> museum. ... > .. Not popular, does not implies bad (and > popular does not implies good). That is especially true of music! Warren
From: Warren on 25 May 2010 13:00 Bryan expounded in news:1cdca5d5-4136-4383-a47f-9397cec34698(a)v18g2000vbc.googlegroups.com: > By all means I say learn Ada at least as a learning exercise. It's a > great language that you can grow with over time. GNAT is a great tool > set as well, it provides you everything you need in the beginning. And pretty soon you'll be comparing all other languages and their features to Ada. ;-) Warren
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov on 25 May 2010 13:34
On Tue, 25 May 2010 18:15:40 +0200, J-P. Rosen wrote: > Georg Bauhaus a �crit : >> Yes. Ada/Ed, though, being an Ada 83 interpreter, being >> written in SETL, not C, and being prototypical for GNAT, >> indicates that C is not necessarily the single language for >> writing high class compilers---as some have implied. >> I'm sure you know that is the case for some other languages, >> too. > In most programming languages, there is a relation between the structure > of the language itself and the kind of data it handles best. For this > reason, and others like ease of porting, it is generally a good idea to > write the compiler in its own language, safe for special cases like > initial bootstrapping. I don't think this is true. 1. Theoretically there is no obvious connection between the language and the things it describes. The word "red" is not red. English grammar is not influenced by Maxwell's equations, etc. [*] 2. Practically, is there any SQL parser written in SQL? The languages in which a compiler can be written are in minority. Well, AFAIK the Convey's life is Turing complete, but there never will be any compiler in it. P.S. I bet Ada is better for writing a C compiler than C. * I said "no obvious", because, clearly, any language is influenced by the way our perception functions. There is a connection, but it is not straightforward. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de |