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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,567c75d71a7993ab
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.220.230 with SMTP id pz6mr2368817pbc.3.1340984281689;
        Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni33728pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Patrick <patrick@spellingbeewinnars.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Would this be logical for embedded hardware?
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <3042920c-d5f4-4945-bf7b-fcb2f63fce41@googlegroups.com>
References: <52386bce-0e18-45e0-a172-e2f8df7d211f@googlegroups.com>
 <jsit1m$1i2h$1@adenine.netfront.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.51.155.15
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1340984281 27044 127.0.0.1 (29 Jun 2012 15:38:01
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:38:01 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <jsit1m$1i2h$1@adenine.netfront.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=70.51.155.15;
 posting-account=cUi90woAAADTaOISowbbHM8GUD0-opJO
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2012-06-29T08:37:59-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hi Jeffery
> 
> This sounds like what was commonly heard about Ada-83 tasking: it won't be fast 
> enough, or will use too much memory/CPU/whatever, so we won't use it and will 
> write a cyclic executive instead. Those who actually used tasks usually found 
> them that they worked fine, and resulted in a much simpler design as well. So 
> don't write off something that would be "fine" without substantiation.
> 
I really wasn't trying to trash Ada in anyway

> 
> I've worked on embedded systems like this (multiple networked 32-bit 
> processors), but they were all developed in Ada. I don't see why you couldn't 
> use Ada for all the processors in your system, too. And you could look into 
> SoftTech's compiler that generates C if you have difficulty finding an Ada 
> compiler targeting your processor of choice.

I couldn't actually find a company called SoftTech that had compilers. This  name is used by many companies.

Could you point me to their site?

Thanks for the feedback-Patrick