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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,539c04254abf1b37 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f6912,fd6a0f1d05ce01f8 X-Google-Attributes: gidf6912,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-23 09:31:41 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!howland.erols.net!news.airnews.net!cabal10.airnews.net!cabal1.airnews.net!news-f.iadfw.net!usenet From: "John R. Strohm" Newsgroups: sci.military.naval,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: naval systems Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 11:18:45 -0800 Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America Message-ID: X-Orig-Message-ID: References: <3C74E519.3F5349C4@baesystems.com> <20020221205157.05542.00000012@mb-cm.news.cs.com> <3C763746.CC8B2965@baesystems.com> Abuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library1-aux.airnews.net NNTP-Posting-Time: Sat Feb 23 11:28:55 2002 NNTP-Posting-Host: !biW"1k-X0WF([] (Encoded at Airnews!) 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 sci.military.naval:102715 comp.lang.ada:20307 Date: 2002-02-23T11:18:45-08:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:a55m56$6mk$1@nh.pace.co.uk... > "David Gillon" wrote in message > news:3C763746.CC8B2965@baesystems.com... > > > > > > Andrew Swallow wrote: > > > The runtime support code > > > needed more memory than most embedded computers had. > > > > Only if you didn't tailor it. And how has the embedded market reacted to > > this supposed limitation? Gone all out for run-time operating > > systems..... > > > Good point. I've built embedded systems with Ada that had nice, small RTKs > that could be cut down to just what you needed and no more. For very tiny > computers, you probably couldn't get the whole of Ada into them, but if you > made intelligent choices about what you needed, you could get all the way > down to *NO* RTK if necessary. Something over ten years ago, I took an Ada training class at Texas Instruments. (It was really a review for me, but I needed the review.) One of the features of the class was a videotape of a Q&A session with Jean Ichbiah and two other Ada luminaries. Ichbiah was asked that precise question, about the size of the runtime, and how it seemed that it would be too big for anything practical. His answer was that a just-about-fully-compliant Ada runtime module had been written in 4K words. Note well his choice of words: not "could be" but "HAD BEEN" (emphasis added). Not long after that, I had occasion to check that answer, for the Tartan Labs toolset for the TI 320C30 32-bit floating point digital signal processor. The Ada runtime module for that processor was, indeed, about 4K words. This rather shocked my supervisor at the time; he'd just assumed it would be prohibitively big and NEVER LOOKED. I don't know very many embedded systems that can't scratch up 4K words of code space for a runtime kernel.