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,ac31ec0a3cebb176 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: GNORT question (was Re: Are un-validated compilers unsafe?) Date: 1999/04/28 Message-ID: <7g5ojq$uq5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 471689941 References: <7fv6cc$5eh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7g4uml$6u8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x5.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Apr 28 01:34:49 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-04-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <7g4uml$6u8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Ada2001 wrote: > Since GNORT is a small subset of Ada 95, would that make > it significantly easier to build a cross-compiler to > target simple 8/16 bit microcontrollers? No, not at all. I am not sure why you think it might ... > I know the topic of Ada for low-end micros has been > discussed before in c.l.a and that you see little market > demand for it. Actually closer to zero demand. > However if a SPARK-like subset > of Ada targeted at the popular Motorola M68HCXX, Atmel > AVR, or the new Microchip PIC18FXXX architectures were > available, I think many people would welcome it as an > alternative to C. If these many people are willing to accompany their welcome with sufficient $$$ I think this could certainly happen, but I doubt that is the case. It's a pity that no volunteer out there has tried to pick up one of these ports .... -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own