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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1db77fbb2768946e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 115aec,7d107e452bdd8496 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public X-Google-Thread: 1143c4,7d107e452bdd8496 X-Google-Attributes: gid1143c4,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-01 12:06:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: linux.dev.kernel,comp.realtime,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is Linux right for Embedded? Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:52:01 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9pae0i$dbq$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3BB69F21.B5AA7451@intercom.com> <9p84tm$1ovg$1@news.cybercity.dk> <9pa0in$8bb$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9pa9of$9me$1@xmission.xmission.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1001962322 13690 136.170.200.133 (1 Oct 2001 18:52:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Oct 2001 18:52:02 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com linux.dev.kernel:4065 comp.realtime:3911 comp.lang.ada:13592 Date: 2001-10-01T18:52:02+00:00 List-Id: Go ahead and be so bold. :-) That is exactly my point. Productivity doubled and errors were reduced by a factor of four. (The latter probably having a significant impact on the former.) That has to translate into lower cost and higher reliability. You can get good systems in any language - you just might have to spend the next 5 years debugging & patching in the lab to get there. I'd rather get all the automated help I can find by way of Ada's checking, structural integrity and organizational capabilities. That will preserve the stockholder's money for something more productive. Also, I would contend that there are likely to be other languages that show similar improvements over C/C++ in terms of productivity and error rates. I just don't have any data on other languages that provide similar safety capabilities. BTW: For some reason, my newsreader is not able to resolve the reference to linux.dev.kernel - is this a problem elsewhere? Is the post getting throug to that group? MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Pat Rogers" wrote in message news:v52u7.232$vH4.50798716@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > "bgeer" wrote in message > news:9pa9of$9me$1@xmission.xmission.com... > > You missed his point. The question is not whether language is a replacement > for talent, and he did not assert that it was impossible to make high > reliability code with anything other than Ada. The question is "for how > much money?". His point (if I may be so bold) is that they did it much more > economically in Ada. Other have seen these results too. >