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,db351aa38857baa2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Ed Falis" <falis@ma.aonix.com>
Subject: Re: NT kernel-mode device drivers in Ada?
Date: 1997/06/05
Message-ID: <EBA2GE.3uq@thomsoft.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 246207673
Sender: news@thomsoft.com (USENET News Admin @flash)
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 192.157.137.14
References: <5mr324$8im@ion1.ionet.net> <339336BB.602D@top.monad.net>
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE Engine V4.71.0544.0
Organization: Aonix, San Diego, CA, USA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


We haven't yet had a chance to try it, but we believe it to be feasible to
write device drivers in Ada with our product (ObjectAda).  It's on my "to
do" list.

The main issue is that for now you would have to provide import pragmas for
the DDK routines you use, as well as selecting the appropriate types from
interfaces.c or the win32api binding.  You will probably also need to
exercise some care about what features you use.

- Ed
 Steve O'Neill wrote in article <339336BB.602D@top.monad.net>...
>Mike D Bates wrote:
>>
>> Could use some help in answering yet another objection to Ada.  Has
>> anyone here successfully implemented an NT kernel-mode device driver.
>> A FAQ on the subject (http://www.cmkrnl.com/faq.html) says that using
>> anything but C for this purpose would be like swimming upstream with a
>> brick in each hand.  Can anyone cite experience to the contrary?
>
>Is there some reason why you would not want to use the best (i.e. most
>effective) language in its appropriate domain?  If you don't relish
>swimming upstream with bricks then don't.  Use C (or the advisable
>portions of C++) for the device driver development where it appears to
>have advantages in terms of productivity.  Use Ada for the majority of
>the simulator where, IMHO, it definitely has productivity advantages.
>Provide and Ada interface to the driver.
>
>Just because it's what NT was written in and is the best supported
>language to write drivers in doesn't mean that C should be the only
>language used to develop the entire application.
>
>I doubt that the cost of the two compilers combined could even come
>close to the cost incurred by using Ada for driver development or C for
>simulation development and support.
>
>Steve O'Neill
>