* Ada in Embedded Systems Programming. @ 1994-10-27 13:00 whiting_ms@corning.com (Matt Whiting) 1994-10-27 18:35 ` John M. Mills 1994-10-28 14:24 ` Norman H. Cohen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: whiting_ms@corning.com (Matt Whiting) @ 1994-10-27 13:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Has anyone other than me read the most recent edition of "Embedded Systems Programming" magazine (Vol. 7, Number 11, Nov. 94)? It contains two interesting articles: one about Ada directly, and one that uses Ada as the vehicle to illustrate another point. I found both very good reading. I'm a long-time Ada fan trapped in a corporation that went from marginal to worse (FORTRAN to C). I found these two articles very refreshing. They didn't come across to me as the usual obnoxious "my language is better than yours" drivel, but rather made some very calm and factual arguments as to why Ada was chosen for the specific application. I'm beginning to think that the DOD mandate is very counter productive as a lot of people seem to get their jollies from telling Uncle Sam to take a hike. Maybe if DOD dropped the mandate they would actually ENCOURAGE the commercial use of Ada (many commercial companies want no association at all with the military) and maybe even the DOD use. The military can always simply offer more promotions to program managers that choose Ada if they really feel the need for an external incentive. If the military is anything like civilian companies, the word will soon get around and people will soon get the hint! :-) So ... maybe all you vocal Ada supporters should consider lobbying for elimination of the mandate and the use of more "personal" incentives for the use of Ada where it makes good sense. Maybe we need a few more carrots and a few less sticks... -- Matthew S. Whiting, P.E. | PP-ASEL-IA | All opinions expressed herein are Corning Incorporated | | strictly personal. whiting_ms@corning.com | | ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Embedded Systems Programming. 1994-10-27 13:00 Ada in Embedded Systems Programming whiting_ms@corning.com (Matt Whiting) @ 1994-10-27 18:35 ` John M. Mills 1994-10-28 13:10 ` Ted Dennison 1994-10-28 14:24 ` Norman H. Cohen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: John M. Mills @ 1994-10-27 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <1994Oct27.080032.1@corning.com>, whiting_ms@corning.com (Matt Whiting) <whiting_ms@corning.com> wrote: > >Has anyone other than me read the most recent edition of "Embedded Systems >Programming" magazine (Vol. 7, Number 11, Nov. 94)? It contains two >interesting articles: one about Ada directly, and one that uses Ada as the >vehicle to illustrate another point. I found both very good reading. Yes, I enjoyed reading these articles. Each was useful, but the article on system engineering an automobile cruise control was particularly gratifying in that it addressed realities of what I consider "software engineering" as contrasted to "computer science." On the other hand, the satellite-borne controller described in the cover article (by Richard Riehle) describe a system actually realized in Ada, whereas the cruise control would presumably be recoded for smaller targets than supported by most Ada compilers: "I wrote the Ada design with an assembly language solution in mind." -[author] He also specifically refers to Ada typing models which will enhance the protability and/or focus attention on implementation requirements for the eventual targets [i.e., multi-precision fixed-point arithmetic]. I find this a quite useful insight. 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 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 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. (Nomex gloves and safety glasses are now in place!) Regards --jmm-- -- John M. Mills, SRE -- john.m.mills@gtri.gatech.edu -- (404)528-3258 (voice) Georgia Tech/ GTRI/ SDL, 7220 Richardson Rd., Smyrna, GA 30080 Inez Has Tiny Fuzzy Poodles - II'67 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Embedded Systems Programming. 1994-10-27 18:35 ` John M. Mills @ 1994-10-28 13:10 ` Ted Dennison 1994-10-31 14:03 ` John M. Mills 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 1994-10-28 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <38orsv$1sv@siberia.gatech.edu>, jmills@ccrf-news.gatech.edu (John M. Mills) writes: |> I believe the "all or nothing" approach to Ada's design has shut it out of |> a lot of this class of applications, quite aside from Ada's other qualities There are a TON of validated Ada cross-compilers. I have done an embedded project in Ada, with no real problems. I think there is a lot more embedded Ada programming than you may be aware of. So what is the problem with Ada for embedded applications? |> as a development language: by that, I mean that I am unaware of |> a compiler which would target (say) an 8051, following code development and Well, a quick search through the list of validated compilers confirms your suspicions; I couldn't find any validated 8051 cross compiler. The 8051 is WAY obsolete though. Nonetheless, I'm sure someone will port GNAT to it if there is any kind of demand. |> analysis on a larger platform. I'm afraid I consider the common "Show me a |> design that couldn't be done in Ada" response to be foolish and immaterial if |> the application environment can't accept the targets which Ada compilers can |> support. The Riehle article mentions some [Ada legal] suppressions which |> enable them to target a 64Kw memory space. In retrospect, more elaborate |> switches to turn Ada language features on and off might have been a good |> design approach. |> Cross compiler vendors commonly use a reduced version of the the Ada runtime (eg: no tasking or dynamic memory allocation/deallocation). Is this the kind of thing you are thinking of? T.E.D. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Embedded Systems Programming. 1994-10-28 13:10 ` Ted Dennison @ 1994-10-31 14:03 ` John M. Mills 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: John M. Mills @ 1994-10-31 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <38qt85$as2@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>, Ted Dennison <dennison@romulus23.DAB.GE.COM> wrote: >.. I think there is a lot more embedded >Ada programming than you may be aware of. I'm sure there are many I'm unaware of, but it is interesting how many folks suggest that we are pioneers for doing it. Actually we don't use any radical tools, and many better ones [than what we use] are now available. >So what is the problem with Ada for embedded applications? Nothing, if you can afford enough target processor. My point was that more applications would _benefit_ from Ada if some reduced-function compilers could target common microcontrollers and fit executables into a few tens of KBytes of RAM and ROM. You could benefit from the compile-time qualities, if you forwent some run-time features and libraries. >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 This doesn't explain the ads I see every couple of months for newer and faster 8-bit microcontrollers, including 8051-variants and compatibles, nor the number of ads for cross-compilers (C, of course), emulators, and related tools. The fire alarm/security system just installed in our building uses two 8085 CPUs. Appalling from a technical standpoint, but obviously current technology. (The last 80xx code I wrote was for 8085s, ten years ago. It's probably still running, however.) I would settle for a 16-bit target with small ROM and RAM partitions. I expect the processor chip isn't such a driver as the support silicon. Recently we were asked to identify Ada tools to transition a 16-bit single-card missile telemetry controller from assembly language. After hearing the price, the client was overjoyed to hear about the target memory requirement, since that was so much larger than their hardware, it allowed them to instantly dismiss the expen$ive Ada tools. (Our recommendations matched frequently-given advice here -- don't bother to flame me for not reading the validated compilers list. We also talked to support engineers identified by the vendors.) >Nonetheless, I'm sure someone will port GNAT to it if there is >any kind of demand. I've always thought of FSF and the GNU project as the one successful example of Supply Side Economics! >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? Yes -- There are probably ways to address this and come out with smaller executables. This problem isn't restricted to Ada -- I managed one project with Intel FORTRAN 77 (extended) on a '286 processor. Our in-house-code size estimates were within about 20%, but Intel's libraries linked about five times what they had estimated for us. Fortunately it was no bell-ringer in that application. Regards --jmm-- -- John M. Mills, SRE -- john.m.mills@gtri.gatech.edu -- (404)528-3258 (voice) Georgia Tech/ GTRI/ SDL, 7220 Richardson Rd., Smyrna, GA 30080 Inez Has Tiny Fuzzy Poodles - II'67 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Ada in Embedded Systems Programming. 1994-10-27 13:00 Ada in Embedded Systems Programming whiting_ms@corning.com (Matt Whiting) 1994-10-27 18:35 ` John M. Mills @ 1994-10-28 14:24 ` Norman H. Cohen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Norman H. Cohen @ 1994-10-28 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <1994Oct27.080032.1@corning.com>, whiting_ms@corning.com (whiting_ms@corning.com (Matt Whiting)) writes: |> I'm beginning to think that the DOD mandate is very counter productive as a lot |> of people seem to get their jollies from telling Uncle Sam to take a hike. |> Maybe if DOD dropped the mandate they would actually ENCOURAGE the commercial |> use of Ada (many commercial companies want no association at all with the |> military) and maybe even the DOD use. Corporations whose decisions are made with this level of maturity are bound to be short-lived anyway, so it shouldn't matter much to anybody which programming language they use. -- Norman H. Cohen ncohen@watson.ibm.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1994-10-31 14:03 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1994-10-27 13:00 Ada in Embedded Systems Programming whiting_ms@corning.com (Matt Whiting) 1994-10-27 18:35 ` John M. Mills 1994-10-28 13:10 ` Ted Dennison 1994-10-31 14:03 ` John M. Mills 1994-10-28 14:24 ` Norman H. Cohen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox