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: 103376,3cd797aa3bdcb07b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Richard D Riehle Subject: Re: performance of Generic and strings Date: 1999/08/13 Message-ID: <7ovrl3$3ts@dfw-ixnews17.ix.netcom.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 512077980 References: <37B18AB6.BBAEF44A@pwfl.com> <7osak8$gph$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37B1B634.543D131D@pwfl.com> <7ovq7d$km$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Organization: Netcom X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Aug 12 8:16:19 PM CDT 1999 X-Inktomi-Trace: sji-ca-cache 934506953 23402 209.109.232.31 (13 Aug 1999 01:15:53 GMT) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-08-12T20:16:19-05:00 List-Id: In article <7ovq7d$km$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert Dewar wrote: > >You have been informed exactly wrong (or misunderstood :-) >It is FAR FAR easier to do macro expansion, and indeed the >design of Ada 95 pretty much assumes macro expansion for >specs. Bodies can be shared, but general sharing of bodies >is VERY VERY tricky, ask Randy Burkhardt :-) Also, ask Terry Dunbar. The TLD compiler used for some of the communication satellite software on a 1750A required a code sharing model. There is a consequent trade-off between time and memory. On a 1750A, there is little of either, but certainly more of time than memory. Yes, I know about the MMU, but the MMU cannot be used on most satellites. Takes too much real-estate and draws too much power. I wonder what kind of model Terry will use for Ada 95. I heard he would use GNAT, but that would run counter to the model of his Ada 83 design. Anyone heard from Terry lately? Richard Riehle richard@adaworks.com http://www.adaworks.com