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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c78177ec2e61f4ac X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: davidk@os6.ifs (David Kristola) Subject: Re: Best for small embedded systems Date: 1997/06/11 Message-ID: <5nl7dr$2mi@butch.lmms.lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 247606291 Distribution: world References: Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Reply-To: davidk@os6.ifs Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article 100000@sky.net, John Howard () writes: >An Ada 95 subset allowing machine code support of Philips XA will be >offered by my company. An XA is a 16-bit target designed with hardware >support for real-time multitasking. Further details will be made available >when the product is ready for release. Great! >On Fri, 6 Jun 1997, Marin David Condic wrote: >> "WhiteR@no.spam.please.crpl.cedar-rapids.lib.ia.us" writes: >> > I tend to agree, with the exception that there are a lot of Forth >> >users/usages for small, resource constrained, embedded applications. >> >You can't beat the memory efficiency. Difficult to get up to speed >> >and be able to _think_ in Forth, but once you do a lone wolf I did not think it was hard to think in Forth, but then i am a stack oriented person (you should see all the stacks of paper on my desk ;-). >> >programmer can be very very productive (with his personal Forth >> >vocabulary of reuseable code). > >I started with Forth in 1980 and stayed with it for about ten years. It is >alot of fun to experiment with. But every project becomes a new dialect of >the language. I used Forth dialects on TRS-80, C-64, Atari 1200, TI 99/4A, Ah yes, Forth on the TI 99/4A. That brings back some great memories. [snip] >Ada 95 subsets can have big advantages over C and Forth. Classwide >programming is not provided by C. C lacks inherent support for >multitasking. Forth is difficult to maintain. Forth and C lack safety >checks that Ada can provide. Ada subsets are allowed to support efficient >implementations of protected types and multitasking models. And bit-level >handling is inherent to Ada. For these reasons I don't believe Forth or C >are overly strong challenges to an Ada 95 subset which directly supports >the hardware of an advanced 16-bit microcontroller. How much of a subset are we talking about (it seems that most of the language is included if you support classwide proramming, multitasking, and protected types). I would hope that generics are not left out. Can you say, or will i have to wait for the official release? :-( >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >-- John Howard -- Team Ada Team OS/2 -- > --- --david kristola (not speaking for Lockheed Martin or SAMCO) (My news reader does not understand the firewall, oh well, automatic spam shield) Home: David95037 at aol dot com Work: don't bother, this account will be gone in a few days. Spam: eat-spam-and-die@dev.null