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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1143c4,7d107e452bdd8496 X-Google-Attributes: gid1143c4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1db77fbb2768946e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 115aec,7d107e452bdd8496 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-03 11:30:12 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!denver-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!coop.net!newsfeed1.global.lmco.com!svlnews.lmms.lmco.com!news1.lmtas.lmco.com!not-for-mail From: Gary Scott Newsgroups: linux.dev.kernel,comp.realtime,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is Linux right for Embedded? Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 13:10:19 -0500 Organization: LM Aeronautics Message-ID: <3BBB548B.CD5033A6@lmtas.lmco.com> References: <3BB69F21.B5AA7451@intercom.com> <9pcvbn$r52$1@xmission.xmission.com> <9pd4s402bga@drn.newsguy.com> <9pfcps$p0l$1@xmission.xmission.com> <3BBB409D.26EF7757@lmtas.lmco.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: CAA261517.lmtas.lmco.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; LMTAS} (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf Xref: archiver1.google.com linux.dev.kernel:4482 comp.realtime:3954 comp.lang.ada:13687 Date: 2001-10-03T13:10:19-05:00 List-Id: Hi, I have 50+ similar anecdotes...as well as experience building C/Win32 and GINO-based apps. But the comparison has as much to do with the high-level structure of GINO (vs Win32) as anything. Ted Dennison wrote: > > In article <3BBB409D.26EF7757@lmtas.lmco.com>, Gary Scott says... > >Pat Rogers wrote: > >> another matter). You seem to be ignoring the points being made. What we > >> are trying to tell you is that there exists proof that development with Ada > >> can be significantly more productive than development with C. > > > >Heck, > >Development with Fortran 95 is significantly more productive than with > >C. We recently had vendors estimate building a small Win32 tool. > >Average estimate was 500 mhrs for a C/Win32 Gui tool related to audio > One highly unscientific anectodte does not constitue anything close to "proof" > in my book. > > However, if there *were* numbers on C vs. Fortran, I wouldn't be shocked to see > Fortran (even F77) come out on top. C's overeliance on pointers cause a great > deal of its problems. But this is all theoretical. The numbers on Ada and C > actually exist. > > --- > T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html > home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com > No trees were killed in the sending of this message. > However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.