Limitations of Ada

Limitations of Ada

[The Quelisher]

With all this discussion about programming different things ins Ada, I 
got to thinking......Just what are the limitations of the language? I 
mean, is it versitile enough to program a Windows program then turn right 
back around and make a kernel?

Just letting curiosity get the better of me...
-- 
#-----------------------------------------------------------------#
| _                                                   __    __    |
| \\                                                  \ \  / /    |
|  \\        GO                                     __ \ \/ / __  |
|   \\   TALLAHASSEE          * 1971 Karmann Ghia * \ \ \  / / /  |
|    \\  TIGERSHARKS!               * Coupe *        \ \/  \/ /   |
|     \\____                                          \  /\  /    |
|      \_XXX)                                          \/  \/     |
|                                                                 |
|       Live Long and Quelish!....................Kendal          |
#-----------------------------------------------------------------#

Re: Limitations of Ada

[Michael Feldman]

In article <31EF79A3.812@freenet.scri.fsu.edu>,
The Quelisher  <kendal@freenet.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:
>With all this discussion about programming different things ins Ada, I 
>got to thinking......Just what are the limitations of the language? I 
>mean, is it versitile enough to program a Windows program then turn right 
>back around and make a kernel?

Yes. It's as versatile as any other language; it is general-purpose.
I often wonder why anyone would think otherwise?

>Just letting curiosity get the better of me...

Why not satisfy that curiosity by giving it a try?

Mike Feldman

Re: Limitations of Ada

[Nasser Abbasi]

   >From: The Quelisher <kendal@freenet.scri.fsu.edu>

   >With all this discussion about programming different things ins Ada, I 
   >got to thinking......Just what are the limitations of the language? I 
   >mean, is it versitile enough to program a Windows program then turn right 
   >back around and make a kernel?

   >Just letting curiosity get the better of me...



Ada has no known limitations.

bye,
Nasser
-- 
Nasser Abbasi. C/C++/Ada Solaris. GeneAssist - A client/server application 
for Nucleic acid and protein sequence search and analysis. 
Perkin Elmer - Applied BioSystem division. email:  nasser@apldbio.com   
MSEE(control), MSCS, MSCE, FM (Fide Chess Master).

Re: Limitations of Ada

[Bob Munck]

>From: The Quelisher <kendal@freenet.scri.fsu.edu>
>With all this discussion about programming different things ins Ada, I
>got to thinking......Just what are the limitations of the language? 
> 

Ada is unable to exceed the speed of light.

Re: Limitations of Ada

[David Kristola]

In article 6EBF@acm.org, Bob Munck <munck@acm.org> () writes:
>>From: The Quelisher <kendal@freenet.scri.fsu.edu>
>>With all this discussion about programming different things ins Ada, I
>>got to thinking......Just what are the limitations of the language? 
>> 
>
>Ada is unable to exceed the speed of light.

I have been unable to write Ada code that reads a user's mind.

david kristola
Work: davidk@os1.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com
Play: DJKristola@aol.com

My suggestion for Lockheed Martin's next slogan:
"Lockheed Martin, we make things that go BOOM!"

Re: Limitations of Ada

[Ron Thompson]

davidk@OS2.ifs (David Kristola) wrote:

>
>My suggestion for Lockheed Martin's next slogan:
>"Lockheed Martin, we make things that go BOOM!"
>

Yeah, I snipped all the other about C/C++/Ada, Ada
limitations, Java vs Freeze_Dried, etc. The suggestion
above is what is REALLY important in any discussion
of real time embedded old crap that MOST of us have to
support. At least around here anyway.

That, David, is an excellent suggestion. There was a list
floating around a couple of months ago that outlined some
really good ones for the slogan du jour. Try to get yours
on it! A good laugh here that was. LM probably laughed too.

rct
The opinions above are mine and mine alone.

Re: Limitations of Ada

[Ken Garlington]

Ron Thompson wrote:
> 
> davidk@OS2.ifs (David Kristola) wrote:
> 
> >My suggestion for Lockheed Martin's next slogan:
> >"Lockheed Martin, we make things that go BOOM!"
> 
> That, David, is an excellent suggestion.

Of course, for us LM types that build flight control systems,
we might prefer:

"Lockheed Martin, we make things that make _other_ things go BOOM!"

since, when _our_ systems go BOOM, this is considered a Bad Thing :)

-- 
LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"

Re: Limitations of Ada

[Byron B. Kauffman]

Ken Garlington wrote:
> 
> Ron Thompson wrote:
> >
> > davidk@OS2.ifs (David Kristola) wrote:
> >
> > >My suggestion for Lockheed Martin's next slogan:
> > >"Lockheed Martin, we make things that go BOOM!"
> >
> > That, David, is an excellent suggestion.
> 
> Of course, for us LM types that build flight control systems,
> we might prefer:
> 
> "Lockheed Martin, we make things that make _other_ things go BOOM!"
> 
> since, when _our_ systems go BOOM, this is considered a Bad Thing :)
> 
> --
> LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"


Hey, whattaya expect from an ex A-12 avionics guy?

Byron Kauffman
LMTAS - "We Do Falcons Right"

Things that go BOOM (was Re: Limitations of Ada)

[David Kristola]

Just to set the record straight, i am currently working on a missile program
(hopefully, it will go BOOM when and where it is supposed to).

Ken Garlington wrote:
> Of course, for us LM types that build flight control systems,
> we might prefer:
> 
> "Lockheed Martin, we make things that make _other_ things go BOOM!"

That too.

> Byron Kauffman
> LMTAS - "We Do Falcons Right"

An F-16 can make a nice sonic BOOM.

david kristola
Work: davidk@os1.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com
Play: DJKristola@aol.com

My *revised* suggestion for Lockheed Martin's next slogan:
"Lockheed Martin, we make things that go BOOM!, whoosh, ping, wherrrr, pop, shhhh,
hummm (not necessarily the same thing, or at the same time)."

Re: Things that go BOOM (was Re: Limitations of Ada)

[Theodore E. Dennison]

David Kristola wrote:
> 
> Just to set the record straight, i am currently working on a missile program
> (hopefully, it will go BOOM when and where it is supposed to).
> 
> Ken Garlington wrote:
> > Of course, for us LM types that build flight control systems,
> > we might prefer:
> >
> > "Lockheed Martin, we make things that make _other_ things go BOOM!"
> 
> That too.
> 
> > Byron Kauffman
> > LMTAS - "We Do Falcons Right"
> 
> An F-16 can make a nice sonic BOOM.
> 
> david kristola
> Work: davidk@os1.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com
> Play: DJKristola@aol.com
> 
> My *revised* suggestion for Lockheed Martin's next slogan:
> "Lockheed Martin, we make things that go BOOM!, whoosh, ping, wherrrr, pop, shhhh,
> hummm (not necessarily the same thing, or at the same time)."

Well, our engine control/sensor monitoring/actuator controlling software should
neither go BOOM, nor make anything else go BOOM (unless you count the combustion
chamber inside the engine).

Additionally, the folks across the aisle from me in simulations just make things
LOOK like they went BOOM.

..here to help.
-- 
T.E.D.          
                |  Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com  |
                |  Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net              |
                |  URL  - http://www.iag.net/~dennison         |

Re: Things that go BOOM (was Re: Limitations of Ada)

[Ken Garlington]

Theodore E. Dennison wrote:
> 
> Well, our engine control/sensor monitoring/actuator controlling software should
> neither go BOOM, nor make anything else go BOOM (unless you count the combustion
> chamber inside the engine).

Unless of course, your software is used in a weapon system that makes other things
go BOOM (like my software)!

> ..here to help.

Re: Limitations of Ada

[Keith Thompson]

In <31F54DE2.6EBF@acm.org> Bob Munck <munck@acm.org> writes:
> >From: The Quelisher <kendal@freenet.scri.fsu.edu>
> >With all this discussion about programming different things ins Ada, I
> >got to thinking......Just what are the limitations of the language? 
> > 
> 
> Ada is unable to exceed the speed of light.

Why must people continue to spread the myth that Ada is inherently slower
than C?

8-)}

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@thomsoft.com <*>
TeleSoft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Alsys^H^H^H^H^H Thomson Software Products
10251 Vista Sorrento Parkway, Suite 300, San Diego, CA, USA, 92121-2718
"As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet
deserves the highest protection from government intrusion." -- ACLU v. Reno

Re: Limitations of Ada

[David Weller]

In article <31F54DE2.6EBF@acm.org>, Bob Munck  <munck@acm.org> wrote:
>Ada is unable to exceed the speed of light.

Rumor has it that IBM is working on a practical solution to this by
redefining 'c' :-)  (A dual pun if there ever was :-)
-- 
    Visit the Ada 95 Booch Components Homepage: www.ocsystems.com/booch
           This is not your father's Ada -- lglwww.epfl.ch/Ada

Re: Limitations of Ada

[Klaus Wyss]

The Quelisher wrote:
> 
> With all this discussion about programming different things ins Ada, I
> got to thinking......Just what are the limitations of the language? I
> mean, is it versitile enough to program a Windows program then turn right
> back around and make a kernel?
> 
> Just letting curiosity get the better of me...
> --

There are no limitations, as long as you stay in the in the nice clean
ADA world.
If you go to the real dirty computer world, with all the C libraries
(Windows,X11,DCE, DB access .... ) you get a lot of limitations.
For example if your ADA is not based on pthreads you run into problems
with DCE. 

Klaus Wyss
UBS Switzerland

Re: Limitations of Ada

[Robert Dewar]

Klaus says

"There are no limitations, as long as you stay in the in the nice clean
ADA world.
If you go to the real dirty computer world, with all the C libraries
(Windows,X11,DCE, DB access .... ) you get a lot of limitations.
For example if your ADA is not based on pthreads you run into problems
with DCE."


Well of course if you are going to interface to the outside world, you
must make sure that your Ada compiler has the appropriate capabilities.
For example, if you want to interface to C, make sure that the systems
programming annex is supported.

Similarly, it is quite true that if you want to interface to an outside
threads package, then this has implications on the runtime. The statement
above is not quite correct, since DCE uses DCE threads, which are not
compatible with Pthreads (I assume Pthreads means Posix threads), since
they are based on Draft 4, rather than the final version (which was 
draft 10). However, the differences are small.

GNAT uses the DCE threads interface on a number of different machines, and
even on a machine where it uses pthreads (e.g. SGI Irix), it would be
quite easy to build a version based on DCE threads is this were a
requirement.

Re: Limitations of Ada

[David Emery]

...
>, since
> [DCE threads] are based on Draft 4, rather than the final version (which was 
> draft 10). However, the differences are small.
> 

Not THAT small, particularly for an Ada RTS!

            dave

Re: Limitations of Ada

[Theodore E. Dennison]

The Quelisher wrote:
> 
> With all this discussion about programming different things ins Ada, I
> got to thinking......Just what are the limitations of the language? I
> mean, is it versitile enough to program a Windows program then turn right
> back around and make a kernel?

My understanding is that BLISS is required to code a VMS device driver. 
That's the only "Can't" that I ever came across.

-- 
T.E.D.          
                |  Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com  |
                |  Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net              |
                |  URL  - http://www.iag.net/~dennison         |