Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!sdcc6!beowulf!djohnson
From: djohnson@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.amiga
Subject: Re: Amiga UX and Ada
Message-ID: <16098@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 91 20:06:53 GMT
References: <549.27a32b94@vger.nsu.edu> <743@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>
Sender: news@sdcc6.ucsd.edu
Organization: CSE Dept., UC San Diego
Lines: 24
Nntp-Posting-Host: beowulf.ucsd.edu

>In article <549.27a32b94@vger.nsu.edu> g_harrison@vger.nsu.edu ((George C. Harrison) Norfolk State University) writes:
>Since the operating system is essentially generic, it would "seem" that
>developing an Ada compiler would be relatively simple IF there is enough
>interest.  

Well, for what it's worth...  Telesoft's early Ada compilers (don't know
about now) were written on top of p-code (pseudo code), so that the porting
of a compiler mostly involved just porting the p-code interpreter.  And
there was definately a "generic" 68000 compiler also.

Probably a big problem is that most people selling Ada charge big bucks,
and may be unready to support the larger and less profitable world of
single user computers.  (check out the difference in price between VMS
compilers for different computer sizes)

Of course, I know some people who would be perfectly willing to use
inexpensive unvalidated Ada compilers, or even not-quite-Ada, since
then development could be done on workstations, etc.  GNU could do
this, but I expect they'd rather write a COBOL compiler before an Ada
one.
-- 
Darin Johnson
djohnson@ucsd.edu
  - Political correctness is Turing undecidable.