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-Thread: 103376,aba1514f4a1fc450 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.66.76.130 with SMTP id k2mr3086780paw.16.1345602778645; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:32:58 -0700 (PDT) Path: t10ni10866049pbh.0!nntp.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!cyclone03.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!voer-me.highwinds-media.com!feed.xsnews.nl!border-2.ams.xsnews.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!news2.euro.net!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!news.osn.de!diablo2.news.osn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Bill Findlay Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Have the Itanium critics all been proven wrong? Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 03:32:55 +0100 Message-ID: References: <077b12f6-1196-4b5c-bbdb-04291b1ae616@q22g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> <589825d2-d998-456a-9c37-c8ae13e1e7bc@e29g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: individual.net NltxVJLFhtK5ox1McJfrww0NefvVDt82VQ8jKjmZFyIF9sWpFwv5X0vljcK1jwxEGJ Cancel-Lock: sha1:Qjqbt4hbKGGq3djkXIRlW3sKhhw= User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.33.0.120411 Thread-Topic: Have the Itanium critics all been proven wrong? Thread-Index: Ac2ADm9eAOW1k7w7/ESKwNb2tOAWTg== X-Received-Bytes: 3796 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 2012-08-22T03:32:55+01:00 List-Id: On 22/08/2012 01:58, in article keb838pn40uf3pq1536e9b3dptgd57h3se@invalid.netcom.com, "Dennis Lee Bieber" wrote: > On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 23:48:29 +0300, Niklas Holsti > declaimed the following in > comp.lang.ada: > >> (I'm cross-posting (I hope) this to comp.lang.ada, since there are >> questions on how Ada is used.) >> >> On 12-08-21 16:00 , Michael S wrote: > >>> Preface: >>> According to my understanding, one of the Ada objectives was creating >>> two languages in one. >>> The first language intended primarily for complex embedded software, >>> but also suitable for general-purpose system programming. >>> The second language intended primarily for big complex application- >>> level programming, but is also applicable for relatively simple >>> embedded software and for some system programming tasks. >> >> I've been involved wih Ada for a long time, but I don't remember such a >> "two languages" thing being discussed. Perhaps it was a topic in the >> early language definition stages. >> > At least during the AJPO period and MIL-STD/1815A, the Ada > specification was NO SUBSETS and NO SUPERSETS were permitted to call > themselves Ada. (This doesn't cover optional annexes, just the core > language). Yes. That was enforced rigorously. But things are different now. The Restrictions pragma allows the programmer to exclude features that are considered inappropriate for a particular application. So it could be said that Ada now has 2**N subsets, where N is the number of Restrictions options. I don't have an exact count, but N is of the order of 50. Here are the restrictions I impose on my own code: pragma Restrictions(Max_Asynchronous_Select_Nesting => 0); pragma Restrictions(Max_Tasks => 0); pragma Restrictions(No_Abort_Statements); The above disallow the concurrency feature so that overheads for concurrency support are not imposed on my sequential programs. pragma Restrictions(No_Implementation_Attributes); pragma Restrictions(No_Obsolescent_Features); These are intended to promote portability and forward compatibility. -- Bill Findlay with blueyonder.co.uk; use surname & forename;