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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1f7d7b079ba46a43
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-30 23:35:44 PST
Path: 
 nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!scsing.switch.ch!swidir.switch.ch!univ-lyon1.fr!jussieu.fr!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!news.mathworks.com!yeshua.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!ncar!csn!boulder!news.coop.net!news.den.mmc.com!iplmail.orl.mmc.com!romulus23!dennison
From: dennison@romulus23.DAB.GE.COM (Ted Dennison)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada in Embedded Systems Programming.
Date: 28 Oct 1994 13:10:29 GMT
Organization: General Electric SCSD, Daytona Beach FL
Sender: dennison@romulus23 (Ted Dennison)
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <38qt85$as2@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>
References: <1994Oct27.080032.1@corning.com> <38orsv$1sv@siberia.gatech.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: romulus23.orl.mmc.com
Date: 1994-10-28T13:10:29+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <38orsv$1sv@siberia.gatech.edu>, jmills@ccrf-news.gatech.edu (John M. Mills) writes:
|> I believe the "all or nothing" approach to Ada's design has shut it out of
|> a lot of this class of applications, quite aside from Ada's other qualities

There are a TON of validated Ada cross-compilers. I have done an embedded 
project in Ada, with no real problems. I think there is a lot more embedded
Ada programming than you may be aware of. 

So what is the problem with Ada for embedded applications?

|> as a development language: by that, I mean that I am unaware of
|> a compiler which would target (say) an 8051, following code development and

Well, a quick search through the list of validated compilers confirms your 
suspicions; I couldn't find any validated 8051 cross compiler. The 8051 is WAY
obsolete though. Nonetheless, I'm sure someone will port GNAT to it if there is
any kind of demand.

|> analysis on a larger platform.  I'm afraid I consider the common "Show me a
|> design that couldn't be done in Ada" response to be foolish and immaterial if
|> the application environment can't accept the targets which Ada compilers can
|> support.  The Riehle article mentions some [Ada legal] suppressions which
|> enable them to target a 64Kw memory space.  In retrospect, more elaborate
|> switches to turn Ada language features on and off might have been a good
|> design approach.
|> 

Cross compiler vendors commonly use a reduced version of the the Ada runtime
(eg: no tasking or dynamic memory allocation/deallocation). Is this the kind
of thing you are thinking of?

T.E.D.