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, MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c2f4cdd9ccfb8ede,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: muddy_buddy@my-deja.com Subject: Re: How many different processors do you use? Date: 1999/06/08 Message-ID: <7jjij7$qci$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 487117678 References: <7j1qng$4fp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37576ded.26569745@news.mpx.com.au> <7j8ac0$eah$1@uranium.btinternet.com> <7jh07e$tek$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7jhp34$6f1$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x26.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 138.126.255.193 Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Jun 08 17:06:56 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded;,comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.51 [en] (WinNT; U) Date: 1999-06-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <7jhp34$6f1$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, fmanning@my-deja.com wrote: > In article <7jh07e$tek$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, > muddy_buddy@my-deja.com wrote: > > > [...] With the failure of the Ada effort, we again face the problem > > of having software that can't be run on the currently available > > processors. Java is just not up to image processing, and C/C++ lack > > consistant enough standards to insure processor indepence without a > > lot of work. [...] > > What's the deal with Ada? Was there a lack of compiler? Just curious. IN MOHO, Ada is indeed better than C, and Ada 95 is more consistant than C++, if not quite as OO friendly. I think what happen to Ada is the following. 1. The Ada comittee went and created their own syntak, and increased the learning curve. 2. The Reagen adminstration was so anti-gov that they didn't fund a quality free or at least cheap Ada development system for education, and small companies. An Ada development system could cost upto 10,000 $ for a bad product. 3. Ada's requirements on compiliers made them more expensive, and very hard to do on DSP, and small embedded Processors. This meant that Chip manufactures were reluctant to fund development. 4. The high costs of using Ada prevented widespread use outside the defense industry. 5. As said before, the government blind insistance that Ada was the choice for everything, embittered the defense companies and their Engineers. 6. All of the above has created a situlation, where staffing Ada programmers is very, very difficult. Many companies have given up and switched back to C/C++ including mine. This problem was made much worst by the current engineering market, where people need and want to be able to move often. Knowing Ada is not a big plus outside defense and a few related fields. 7. The killer is that defense programs run for years and thus you like to start with the state of the Art Processors. Since Ada is not a popular language it is almost never supported at the start of a Processor life cycle. BTW I know Ada and it is better than C, though the tools aren't too hot. Robert Posey > > -- Frank Manning > -- NetMedia, Inc. > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Share what you know. Learn what you don't. > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.