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,c30642befcd7bf85
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: New GNAT ports (was Re: Ada and Automotive Industry)
Date: 1997/01/07
Message-ID: <E3nG3v.CsE@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 208312683
references: <dewar.851455793@merv> <5asvku$jtu$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-01-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <5asvku$jtu$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>,
Richard A. O'Keefe <ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>I've been studying the 8051 recently.
>I've convinced myself that with the aid of one more pragma [%]
>an Ada *subset* can straightforwardly do everything that assembler
>can do.

How would this subset compare to the Ada subset embedded in SPARK?

>...I mean, we're talking
>about systems where the wire would be the most expensive part!

Then why bother using a high-level language at all?  I mean, if the
software is small and cheap enough, then assembly works fine.

- Bob