From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ffce418d7a49585f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-21 14:18:14 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!cmcl2!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!nobody
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: C++ bashing (was Re: Vendor bashing? Sort of.)
Date: 20 Sep 1994 17:51:39 -0400
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Message-ID: <35nlhb$6u0@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <Cw4Iz2.5yJ@inmet.camb.inmet.com> <359ia6$lkj@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
 <35isfn$pqd@felix.seas.gwu.edu> <35mpqnINNi2e@marble.summit.novell.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu
Date: 1994-09-20T17:51:39-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


I would not quite put C-Front in the same category as GNAT. The big difference
is whether you are generating source code as an intermediate step. The
wword preprocessor is normally reserved for translator systems that do
generate intermediate source. In no sense whatever does GNAT generate C,
it links directly to the GCC backend, and by no stretch of the imagination
can GNAT be called a preprocessor (if GNAT is a preprocessor, so are all
the front ends of GCC, including C itself).

Now of course ideally, if the intermediate source code is 100% hidden from
the user, then it is not so important a distinction, however, it can
certainly effect efficiency (there is no efficient way of handling Ada OR
C++ exceptions if you have to generate C source code).