Re: Point a beginner in the right direction? Cheap bare-board to run with a RTOS for running ADA

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

On 09.07.13 11:12, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 10:33:00 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>
>> On 09.07.13 09:51, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 17:27:11 -0700 (PDT), mjsilva@scriptoriumdesigns.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And these micros continue to have those memory-mapped hardware registers,
>>>> and those of us who program these chips deal with those registers all the time.
>>>
>>> No technology ever dies, it becomes niche.
>>
>> Microcontrollers a niche???
>
> Yes.

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcontroller#Volumes

>>> Ada's advantage in the niche is minimal.
>>
>> Please provide evidence.
>
> Because the microcontrollers we are talking about are those where Ada would
> be restricted to a subset which would have only syntactic advantages over
> C.

There is evidence to the contrary. Notably, Ada's scalars
seem worth using it.

> The programs are tiny, data structures absent.

The list, the prototypical data structure, originated in
computers that size. The hash table isn't far from it.
So is the small set (bits representing presence).

> The software is not
> maintained as the hardware becomes obsolete in few years.

You just heard that "the guys" still work with field
proven hardware that was designed many years ago, and
is freshly produced in large quantities.

> Portability is zero.

Algorithmic parts can be close to 100% portable, since they just
require some memory and a reasonably complete set of instructions.
I/O isn't that different between simple I/O ports of this or that
brand, is it? That quite enough for the many uses of these small
computers.

> Granted, Ada with SPARK would still be an advantage, but people programming
> such stuff won't give a damn anyway.

Programmers might find the data flow parts easy and useful,
once SPARK is readily available.

>>> Its advantage on mainstream SBCs is potentially huge.
>>
>> By all means, please provide evidence!
>
> Because full Ada is portable, maintainable, safe.

That's a claim, and we have just learned that it insufficiently
reflects reality, because there is no Ada where software needs
to be ported.

> As an evidence take our
> embedded middleware written 100% in Ada. It is fully portable across
> Windows/Linux/VxWorks.

These are PC style computers, and many here seem to have said
more than once that they use machines smaller than that, did so,
and will be, successfully.

> Its counterpart written in C++ is strictly for
> Windows PC and even porting it from Win32 to Win64 would impose problems so
> big, that we will probably never do it.

What does Ada provide that is in Win32 but not in C++?
Have you looked at C++ 11 for the tasking bits?