Re: Help with embedded hardware/software platform selection for ADA

["G.B." <rm-dash-bau-haus@dash.futureapps.de>]

On 03.07.13 13:11, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

>> Another fashionable product, which is currently pricey, is
>> LED light bulb control. Is an Arduino with ham radio attached
>> to every bulb even reasonable?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMX512

Cables, huh? 8-)

> http://cargocollective.com/christinametzler/Infografik-Landesgartenschau

Nice! Yet, W-DMX is what people may prefer in their living
rooms, home-made or via meethue.com. Mind you, they are talking
RESTfully to the bulbs' network. Embedded programmers might have
different goals and preferences.

DIY'ers seem to use an Atmega88 and such for connecting via W-DMX.
So, not really $$$ (or even $$) PC hardware.

> No us cycles needed to control LED lamps.

Fewer µs means more reason to not throw $$$ of PC hardware at small,
frugal things.  But, austerity has never been associated with Ada,
correct?


>>> Anyway if you want this, why don't you use some Ada to C compiler?
>>
>> AdaCore's (formerly SofCheck's) requires a C (or C++) runtime,
>> and builds a runtime for Ada on top of it, IIUC. So this doesn't
>> change the picture.
>
> It does because the premise was: no run-time at all. Then it is perfectly
> feasible to compile some arithmetic stuff written in Ada into C.

"OS, or run-time environment should be minimal", from which premise
I might deduce a more inclusive premise than no run-time at all ;-).
But OK, if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdaMagic is not all true
any longer.

> My point is either you have no run-time or else, full Ada, please.

Ada's runtime has been both extended and restricted over the years,
via additions and language defined subsets, repsectively. Furthermore,
taking optional Annexes into account, there is no one full Ada,
practically speaking.