TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Mark Lundquist <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Mark Lundquist <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:20:44 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
From:  Pascal Obry <[log in to unmask]>

>
> Mark Lundquist wrote:
> <<
>        This value of the Ada design has sometimes been mistakenly spoken
>        of as "portability".  From the implementor's point of view,
>        there is an appearance of "portability" because it is easier to
>        port the compiler to novel architectures.  It's really the
>        compiler that is made more "portable", not application code.
> >>
>
> Are you kidding or did I missed something ????
>
> Pascal.

The more degrees of freedom allowed by the language definition, the
easier it is to port implementations of the language system.  For
example, for an 18-bit target architecture you would most likely
implement an Ada Standard.Integer as an 18-bit wide type.  But you'd
have to implement 32-bit arithmetic on this machine to implement a Java
int.


--

Mark Lundquist
Senior Software Engineer
Rational Software
Development Solutions Business Unit
UNIX Suites Group
Aloha, OR, USA

ATOM RSS1 RSS2