Re: Ada and Automotive Industry

[Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lmtas.lmco.com>]

Richard Riehle wrote:
> 
>   If
>   one intends to deploy several hundred thousand devices which depend
>   on this processor, the scale of that deployment dictates that one
>   keep the memory utilization low.  Speed is the other consideration.

The only problem with this argument is that it applies to _many_
real-time embedded systems, not just those based on the 8051. Some of those
systems have been successfully programmed in Ada. In fact, the memory and
throughput efficiency of some Ada implementations has been shown to be very
close to assembly code generated by the average assembly programmer. It won't
be until someone actually posts some detailed notes describing the success or
failure of a port before we know whether or not such a port can be done.

>   As to porting GNAT, it is my understanding that GNAT is based on the
>   GCC technology.  As of right now, I do not know of any attempt to
>   port any GCC language to the 8051.  I wonder why.

Probably because no one has invested sufficient time and energy to
attempt a highly-optimized implementation. Such implementations take
extensive work on _any_ embedded platform.

>   No disagreement with this point-of-view, Robert, if the market were
>   as small as you suggest.  Isuspect you, along with many others,
>   underestimate the number of 8051 projects in place
>   around the world.

Of course, if "many others" do not see a market for 8051s, then I think you
just answered your own question as to why you don't see any attempts to
do a GCC port!

>   Here in Silicon Valley, I run into 8051 programmers
>   all the time.  Perhaps I am in a strange part of the planet.  So I
>   picked up my most recent copy of Embedded Systems Programming Magazine
>   and checked the Ads for 8051 (a la Greg Aharonian).  Sure enough, a
>   whole lot of companies seem to think there is a market for this
>   processor and they are advertising products for development and support
>   of applications.

I get ESP as well, and I see several "C" compilers advertised for the 8051.
Doesn't this fly in the face of your earlier argument that most programmers
would rather use assembly? For that matter, if "C" is commercially feasible,
based on the number of ads, why not Ada (or at least an Ada subset)? There's
certainly published experience that Ada compilers can outperform "C" compilers.

>   Perhaps the market is larger than it might at first seem to be. It is
>   likely to be larger than the market for MIL-STD 1750A development.

The existence of MIL-STD-1750A Ada compilers, IMHO, is due to the large 
investment of a small number of large corporations in such technology. I don't
expect to see such a sizable investment in the future (although I'd like to
be proven wrong!) for any processor.

-- 
LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"
For more info, see http://www.lmtas.com or http://www.lmco.com