TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Laurent Guerby <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 23 Jan 1998 16:27:36 +0100
text/plain (39 lines)
[Note: I'm not speaking for ACT here, it's just my humble programmer
opinion on the multi-language issue.]

> I beg to disagree: the codeview format as used by MSVC++ is pretty much a de
> facto standard for NT.

   There's the Borland world, plus the Watson compiler seem to be used
   a lot too. I talked about "standard", you talked about "de facto
   standard" so we don't really disagree here ;-).

> Furthermore there's always the DLL approach
> available for language interoperability.

   That's the "C-level" interface I mentionned, it is always possible
   to do so on most system. Interfacing C and Ada 95 is easy and
   standard with all Ada 95 compiler I know. Proof: the thin bindings
   to C API are no longer vendor-specific as it was the case in Ada
   83.

> The "won't work" tends to be mainly in the area of inheritance across the
> language boundary.  Most other issues are pretty workable.

   Also exceptions (language and system), tasking synchronization and
   communication, interrupts.

   Of course, it's always possible to make things work, it may even be
   easy if your compiler vendor is dedicated to support it (and it's a
   good thing ;-).

   But there's a tradeoff not to be missed here: if you choose to mix
   C++ and Ada 95, you may end up with a list of constructs to avoid
   on both sides (that you may have learned the hard way, after the
   design phase), so the gain may be less than expected against the
   separate-executable method.

--
Laurent Guerby <[log in to unmask]>, Team Ada, Linux/GNU addict
   "Use the Source, Luke. The Source will be with you, always (GPL)."

ATOM RSS1 RSS2