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,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5f8432149982f35e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: fca1b,5f8432149982f35e
X-Google-Attributes: gidfca1b,public
From: Armin Steinhoff <a-steinhoff@web.de>
Subject: Re: Ada and QNX
Date: 2000/10/16
Message-ID: <8sfk0n0160v@drn.newsguy.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 682186592
References: <8r1i82$ri3$1@kujawiak.man.lodz.pl>
 <V_hB5.59429$dZ2.20181071@news3.rdc1.on.home.com>
 <8r5pe5$h70$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8FCDFD7EEnopenopena@63.209.170.206>
 <39EA6305.CD5CFE1F@ix.netcom.com> <39EA9161.6469DDE2@home.com>
 <39EB1BA2.B5F2BFDF@acm.org> <39EB283A.9F7B4F76@motorola.com>
Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://www.newsguy.com]
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.os.qnx
Date: 2000-10-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Hi Igor,

In article <39EB283A.9F7B4F76@motorola.com>, Igor says...
>
>Summarizing what you and others replied, it looks like everything is
>cool with Ada. Just wondering why it is not yet really resurrected and
>blooming and shining in all its glory.
>
>Perhaps my personal doubts aren't that personal, huh? Nobody appears to
>write an OS in Ada, being so good for system level work.

I deed a lot of system level work ( file control processor of a PBX computer
system) with the language CHILL. It is very similar to ADA because CHILL
inherited a lot of ADA contructs ... so I can imagine to do the same work in
ADA.

>And by the way, many people say that GCC does not generate good code for C, so
>>I'm kinda curious how does GNAT manage to generate good code for such a more
>complex language as Ada. Aside from code generation itself, how do they
>manage to implement things like rendesvous in an efficient

BTW the rendesvous based IPC of ADA is 99,9% similar to the QNX IPC ... so
QNX seems to be the perfect platform for an ADA runtime environment :-) 

>AND portable way?

Where is the problem? The implementations might be different ... but not the 
validated interface to the runtime environment of ADA. 

> Such things normally belong to system-dependent runtime libraries,
>but in Ada they are part of language

... not of the language, it's part of the runtime environment and that 'can' be
build on top of a RTOS.

> and having no proof I nevertheless
>suspect that they are implemented by trading efficiency for portability.

I can't see why an ADA application should not be portable at source code level 
between validated ADA compilers and runtime environments ... 

>It could be that I simply don't know enough and miss something. Would be
>glad to be enlightened :)

Hope someone could do the GNAT port to QNX RTP for you ... so you could play a
little bit with ADA ;-)

ADA was created to support huge software projects ... so it contains a lot of
paradigms which makes our life easier.

Armin

BTW ... the biggest disadvantage with ADA is(was) the puristic validation
process (defined for by the DoD and used often as a competitiv wappen against
non US implementations. Just my OBSERVATION ... years ago.)