Re: Ada's Slide To Oblivion ...

[Steve O'Neill <oneils@gbr.msd.ray.com>]

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> 
> In article <3C598CBD.71740E0D@gbr.msd.ray.com>, Steve O'Neill <oneils@gbr.msd.ray.com> writes:
> > Marin David Condic wrote:
> >> It would help Ada in the embedded world if there were more SBCs available
> >> with at least Ada as an option for compiler choice. If, for example, the SBC
> >> were to come with the gcc/Gnat compiler built so that developers could
> >> choose to use C, C++ or Ada & still have access to all the development
> >> tools, it might stand a chance.
> >
> > Yes, that would improve the situation immensely.  People might actually
> > consider
> > Ada is they were handed the tools along with the hardware.  Of course,
> > many of
> > those folks would simply dismiss it out of hand but the more open-minded
> > folks
> > might actually try it... and like it.
> 
> I don't understand much about this, so please explain.
> I presume SBC stands for "single board computer", sort of an industrial
> Heathkit with all the soldering done.

Correct interpretation of SBC.  There's an incredibly wide and diverse
range
of SBCs out there though - everything from something one might expect
from Heath
all the way up to conduction-cooled boards that could be part of a
rocket ship.

> So what good is an SBC to someone building a rocket ship or a subway ?
> They aren't really going to build it with SBCs in the production units,
> are they ?

If they can they will.  The potential cost savings between designing and
building
your own hardware and grabbing a commercial board is potentially huge. 
And the
US DoD has been pushing the use of COTS (Commercial Off-The-Shelf)
components very
hard for the past decade.

Of course there are places where custom designed is the way to go but
this decision
should be made only after evaluating the options.

Steve