Re: Is Linux right for Embedded?

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>]

On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Preben Randhol wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2001 17:09:35 -0400, Marin David Condic wrote:
> > Or phrased another way: "'Good Enough' Is Not Nearly So Wonderful A Thing As
> > 'Perfect', But Its Good Enough!"
> >
> > Everything you say is true, but when talking to people who develop
> > throw-away code, the emphasis should be on time-to-market and reliability
> > rather than long-term benefits such as reduced maintenance or reusable code.
>
> I cannot see that Ada wouldn't accommodate on all these areas. :-)

No smiley necessary here IMO. If the competiting language is another low
level language (I consider Ada relatively low level, with no pejorative
intended) like C or C++, there is no disadvantage in using Ada, even with
regards to speed of development. I have way more C experience, and I find
it much more pleasant to "hack" in Ada than C.

That's not to say that such an approach is good, but when people argue
that Ada development is laborious and time consuming I'm forced to ask
"Compared to what?". Maybe compared to Erlang, sure, but that may not be a
good choice for other reasons.

> I don't expect the Software Industry to clean up its act themselves.

Good, you won't be disappointed. I'm just scared about the reported trend
away from Ada in defense projects. I don't want those nuclear tipped
cruise missiles missing their various terrorist base targets, and I don't
think that we can convince to many of our guys to ride them Slim Pickens
style all the way to target :-).

-- Brian