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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7ca2a48dd8ded0e5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Richard D Riehle Subject: Re: minimal hardware for ada (newbie) Date: 1999/04/09 Message-ID: <7em0go$sn@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 464604990 References: <370d1d3c.9231283@news.hrz.uni-kassel.de> <370e6571.136518@news.pacbell.net> Organization: Netcom X-NETCOM-Date: Fri Apr 09 5:55:20 PM CDT 1999 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-04-09T17:55:20-05:00 List-Id: >The "smallest" processor I found was a 386. Are 16- >or even 8-bit processors supported, too? RR Software once had an Ada 83 compiler, absent tasking as I recall, for the Z-80. It is rather unlikely anyone would easily produce a full Ada 95 compiler for most of the eight bit machines. In particular, I do not expect to ever see an Ada 95 compiler for the I8051. It is not practical, and probably not feasible. This is pure conjecture, I suppose. I know some of the GNAT folks disagree with me about the feasibility of Ada (1995 standard) on the I8051. We will probably never know about this since no one is taking the trouble to do the port. On the other hand, if someone is talking about a subset of Ada, I think that would be both feasible and technically desirable. The compile time checking alone would be of benefit for many of the applications (especially medical devices) for which the I8051 is used. It is probably not economically attractive to port Ada to, the eight-bitters, and persuading I8051 programmers to use Ada, even a subset, would be a sales job that would make cleaning the Augean stables seem like spring housekeeping. Richard Riehle richard@adaworks.com http://www.adaworks.com