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: 103376,ac55ec18f7b0a53c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-05 00:48:27 PST
From: "Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@nospam.baesystems.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <LTQS6.29382$%_1.5022327@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>
Subject: Re: Ada and embedded applications
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 08:50:53 +0100
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
NNTP-Posting-Host: sg2c11210.dsge.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com
Message-ID: <3b1c8cb0$1@pull.gecm.com>
X-Trace: 5 Jun 2001 08:39:28 GMT, sg2c11210.dsge.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!colt.net!easynet-quince!easynet-melon!easynet.net!btnet-feed5!btnet!newreader.ukcore.bt.net!pull.gecm.com!sg2c11210.dsge.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8123
Date: 2001-06-05T08:50:53+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Chris Campbell <chris.danx@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:LTQS6.29382$%_1.5022327@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> One poster claimed that Ada was not used in some embedded devices because
of
> memory overheads for exception handling.  Claiming it was used in embedded
> devices in industries that had budgets that supported it (e.g. the
aerospace
> industry).

Christ, I'd love a budget of any size! :-)

I'm using Ada (partly) because it will save us money!


> Is this correct or is it rubbish?  Also does exception handling in Ada
really
> have a large overhead?  (This is probably an implementation issue but is
their
> anything in the language that makes exception handling bulky?).

A few compilers I've come across offer 'zero cost' exception handling. By
this
they mean that it will have no affect on %CPU usage if there are no
exceptions.
The price you pay for that tends to be *slightly* slower exception handling
if/
when it does happen.

But really, is this guy designing a system that has exceptions happening in
a run-of-the-mill fashion? If so, he should forget what language it is
written
in and go back to the design...