Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!taurus!aldebaran!schweige
From: schweige@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Language Wars
Message-ID: <2343@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Date: 5 Jun 91 16:03:33 GMT
References: <1991Jun5.075305.1@watt.ccs.tuns.ca>
Reply-To: schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Lines: 26

In article <1991Jun5.075305.1@watt.ccs.tuns.ca> macdonaldk@watt.ccs.tuns.ca writes:
>Theoretically, Ada should win the language war.  However, because of its
>immense size, it is difficult to say that any particular Ada compiler will
>compile code correctly, and efficiently.  The standard only requires the
>program to compile; whether it runs correctly is up to the user to prove.

This isn't really different from other modern languages.  What compilers
for commonly used languages have been proven correct?  Ada at least has a
validation procedure that checks many features of the language for
consistency across various compilers.


>Some of the planners of the next version of Ada have suggested allowing a
>subset to exist, which would be able to operate efficiently on microcomputers.

Actually, reasonable Ada compilers already exist on microcomputers.  There
are several choices of Ada compilers in the MS-DOS and Macintosh worlds.
Meridian's OpenAda series bears investigation.  (And yes, I do want an Ada
compiler for the Amiga!!).

Jeff Schweiger
-- 
*******************************************************************************
Jeff Schweiger	      Standard Disclaimer   	CompuServe:  74236,1645
Internet (Milnet):				schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil
*******************************************************************************