TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To: Mark Lundquist <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:13:21 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Pascal Obry <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (42 lines)
Mark Lundquist wrote:
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

Ok, so I'am completly confused now. I agree with that but your
first message seems to imply that Ada compilers are portable
but not the Ada applications. Maybe this paragraphe was
about Java instead of Ada as noted, or is that a language
problem (I'am french :-) ?


--| Pascal Obry                          Team-Ada Member
--| 45 rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny les Hameaux FRANCE
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"