3 ms·
> this is largely an artifact of Ada syntax being more verbose If you think Ada is actually verbose check out the Ada++ comparisons with other major languages
by 0xDEEPFAC 5y ago
> this is largely an artifact of Ada syntax being more verbose
If you think Ada is actually verbose check out the Ada++ comparisons with other major languages like C++ and Java.
http://www.adapplang.com/tutorial.html http://www.adapplang.com/tutorial.html
- Jtsummers 5y agoStop posting an April Fool’s joke as if it were serious, please.
- 0xDEEPFAC 5y agoits a working compiler, so why not?
- Jtsummers 5y agoIt’s a glorified sed script with a forked version of GCC from April 1st. It’s a joke.
- 0xDEEPFAC 5y agoIt is not? As the creator I can tell you that the parser and analyzer of GCC/GNAT were modified. For example, supporting implicit "use" clauses for packages was a difficult problem to solve - not to mention allowing for abbreviated type names in the Standard package.
- exikyut 5y agoJust had a look at the linked page out of piqued curiosity. The "get started" link on the homepage points to a GitHub release page (https://github.com/AdaPlusPlus/gcc/releases/tag/0-2-0 https://github.com/AdaPlusPlus/gcc/releases/tag/0-2-0) with a 908MB "adapp-for-linux.gz". I'm presuming this is real (908MB would take a tad too long to download today), but if it isn't, that's definitely up there in terms of execution. I completely believe it. Edit: Oh.
- 0xDEEPFAC 5y agoThe Windows binary works, but the Linux one was rushed out. Sorry : /
- Jtsummers 5y agoIt's a very well-executed April Fool's Joke in that regard. But it's still a joke. And 0xDEEPFAC is apparently very committed to the idea that it's a real thing and not a joke. Just look at the commit dates if you have any doubt (and the fact that there haven't been any since then).