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: 103376,6fc39bb88f30631d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: john@assen.demon.co.uk (John McCabe) Subject: Re: HOOD? Date: 1996/07/08 Message-ID: <836847899.17276.1@assen.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 167223141 x-nntp-posting-host: assen.demon.co.uk references: <199607080753.JAA20718@imhotep.cst.cnes.fr> newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jean-Marie Wallut wrote: >In our previous message we used "we" because we were two of us writing >(jean-Marie Wallut & Denis Minguillon). We didn't think we were expessing >the opinion of CNES poeple but only our vue as responsible of development >methods. Thank you for that clarification. >We agree with John McCabe when he says that the hierarchical aspect can >bring some inefficiency in the resulting code. But we also think that coding >style and performance always need a compromise. This compromise is not the >same depending on the fact that the software to design is an onboard >realtime software with strong constraints or a piece of ground segment. >However the compromise is always possible. One can design a hierarchical >solution and then, making sure he respects it, find some bypasses to enhance >performance (supress parent level for example). I do agree here. My own point of view (which I obviously haven't explained clearly) is from an on-board realtime system with very tight time constraints so this may help to explain where my views are derived from. Best Regards John McCabe