mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) (12/18/90)
Referring to Charlie Sampson's note on translations: Of course the computing business has seen this translation stuff before. I hope nobody would seriously consider just mechanically translating Cobol to Ada for the hell of it. Would you all agree that unless a system needs _serious_ revision, we shouldn't fix what ain't broke? Given pragma INTERFACE and some reasonable way to call Ada programs from another language (I know, it's not easy as things stand now), it seems to me that even a multi-language system is better than either perpetuating old languages just for module-to-module compatibility or mindlessly translating badly-written Cobol into badly-written Ada. Who agrees ? Is there any consensus on this out there (after all, I'm stuck in the Ivory Tower :-))? Mike Feldman
eaker@sunbelt.crd.ge.com (Charles E Eaker) (12/18/90)
In article <2467@sparko.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu () writes: >Is there any consensus on this out there (after all, I'm stuck in the >Ivory Tower :-))? Mindless translations are the expected response to mindless mandates, and mindless mandates appear to be on the rise, especially in government contracts. So, if code that does the job exists in some other language, a mindless translator can give you the same algorithms working in whatever language is mandated for the current project and save a lot of money. There are enormous incentives to do just that, and there is no reason to believe that the output of such a translator is any more or less maintainable than the input. Actually, some believe that translators can be produced which will generate code which satisfies coding standards and conventions which experience has shown to be more readily understood, modifiable, etc. -- Chuck Eaker / P.O. Box 8, K-1 3C12 / Schenectady, NY 12301 USA eaker@crd.ge.com eaker@crdgw1.UUCP (518) 387-5964
mneerach@iiic.ethz.ch (Matthias Ulrich Neeracher) (12/19/90)
In article <2467@sparko.gwu.edu>, mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes: > Referring to Charlie Sampson's note on translations: > > Of course the computing business has seen this translation stuff before. > I hope nobody would seriously consider just mechanically translating > Cobol to Ada for the hell of it. Would you all agree that unless a > system needs _serious_ revision, we shouldn't fix what ain't broke? > > Given pragma INTERFACE and some reasonable way to call Ada programs from > another language (I know, it's not easy as things stand now), it seems to > me that even a multi-language system is better than either perpetuating > old languages just for module-to-module compatibility or mindlessly > translating badly-written Cobol into badly-written Ada. Who agrees ? > Is there any consensus on this out there (after all, I'm stuck in the > Ivory Tower :-))? Amen ! (From another Ivory Tower). Could it be that sometimes even for new projects, a multi-language system is better than a single-language one. When I read about writing expert systems in Ada, I have the impression that this is not exactly the kind of thing Ada is good at. Wouldn't it be better to write the "expert" part in Prolog ? > Mike Feldman Matthias ----- Matthias Neeracher mneerach@iiic.ethz.ch "These days, though, you have to be pretty technical before you can even aspire to crudeness." -- William Gibson, _Johnny Mnemonic_