TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To: Pascal Obry <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1999 14:20:44 -0700
Reply-To: Mark Lundquist <[log in to unmask]>
From: Mark Lundquist <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: Message from Pascal Obry <[log in to unmask]> of "Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:16:15 +0200." <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
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


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