Re: Atomicity block

"Ken Hagan" <>
12 Feb 2004 11:00:50 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Atomicity block (2004-02-01)
Re: Atomicity block (Les Cargill) (2004-02-04)
Re: Atomicity block (Thad Smith) (2004-02-04)
Re: Atomicity block (2004-02-04)
Re: Atomicity block (2004-02-04)
Re: Atomicity block (2004-02-08)
Re: Atomicity block (Ken Hagan) (2004-02-12)
Re: Atomicity block (Les Cargill) (2004-02-13)
Language design, was Re: Atomicity block (Joachim Durchholz) (2004-02-26)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: "Ken Hagan" <>
Newsgroups: comp.distributed,comp.programming,comp.compilers
Date: 12 Feb 2004 11:00:50 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 04-02-022 04-02-047
Keywords: parallel
Posted-Date: 12 Feb 2004 11:00:50 EST

Les Cargill wrote:
> Ada has keywords for atomicity, but Ada didn't do very well in the
> marketplace. Shame, it's a nice system.

Perhaps someone should make Ada look like C. It can't be that
hard, since it is only syntax. (I'm thinking of a full compiler
like Cfront, though a pre-processor might be sufficient to get
people interested.)

(You know the sort of thing: curly braces, up-its-own-backside
declaration syntax, overload the angle brackets for generics.)

A "C-like syntax" certainly worked for Java (and C++ before it).
Of course, you'd have to give it a new name, such as Ada++, or
else you'd never be able to market it to the great unwashed.

(No smiley. It was borderline, but on balance I think this is a
serious suggestion.)

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.