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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,751584f55705ddb7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: Ada is almost useless in embedded systems Date: 1996/02/21 Message-ID: <312B0C22.508B@lfwc.lockheed.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 140403708 references: <823906039.22113@assen.demon.co.uk> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Date: 1996-02-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: AdaWorks wrote: > > Whatever reasons you may have are not relevant given Ada's record of > success. I think that's a little harsh. Certainly with Ada 83 (which was the original context of the topic), there were problems with using it for certain classes of embedded systems - some technical, some not. None of them were insurmountable, but they existed. The point is: Ada is no longer Ada 83. Some of the Ada 95 revision requests were written by people with the same gripes as Mr. McCabe, and those RRs were incorporated into Ada 95 where possible. As a result, I think Ada 95 is a better language for embedded systems programming than Ada 83, and so the Ada 83 experience is becoming obsolete from the technical side. From the non-technical side (compiler maturity, cost, etc.) the Ada 95 world is also much improved from the early days of Ada 83.