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: 103376,7ee10ec601726fbf
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-11 01:42:05 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!195.158.233.21!news1.ebone.net!news.ebone.net!news1.fra.nextra.com!nextra.com!demon.net.MISMATCH!bullseye.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!pipehawk.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: john.mccabe@emrad.com.nospam (John McCabe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: is Ada dying?
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 08:41:26 GMT
Organization: Emrad Ltd
Message-ID: <3bc55b1a.3036135@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <Xns9133DBAF0AD71ralphworkcoza@196.25.240.158>
 <9prl5701m0v@drn.newsguy.com> <3bc16b42.3799903@news.demon.co.uk>
 <3BC20BC2.1F92FADB@adaworks.com> <3bc2b25a.1919900@news.demon.co.uk>
 <3BC3D6A9.DF42F428@adaworks.com> <9q1j01$clq$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pipehawk.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pipehawk.demon.co.uk:158.152.226.81
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1002789697 nnrp-01:2786 NO-IDENT
 pipehawk.demon.co.uk:158.152.226.81
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14223
Date: 2001-10-11T08:41:26+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:38:07 -0400, "Marin David Condic"
<dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote:

I'm sure I discussed this with you a lonog time ago, but what version
of the processor did you use?

>I did one in Ada83 that used tasking. It was a rather limited amount of
>tasking consisting of just a set of loops to execute things at various
>intervals, but it was a tasking app on a 1750a. We had only very limited
>rendesvous just to enable lower priority loops to start and didn't use any
>of the more sophisticated techniques for sharing data between threads
>(parameter passing, etc) because we couldn't stand the processor overhead.
>It wasn't easy and we ended up running at near capacity, so I'd obviously
>recommend that faster, bigger processors get used for apps, but IIRC, the
>tasking executive overhead was only about 7% of our processor time, so I
>wouldn't rule it out as unadvisable.