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: 115aec,10a739dd228c3f5e X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,ff18b3dfbae1e1d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-28 08:45:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.flash.net!prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr12.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Pat Rogers" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.realtime References: <3D6CEB7E.E6930EAD@avionics.saab.se> Subject: Re: Ada as a real time language X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.191.182.164 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com 1030549493 ST000 208.191.182.164 (Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:44:53 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:44:53 EDT Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: T[OUS^[BTRU[RID[N[OJNW@@YJ_ZTB\MV@BT]UEK@YUDUWYAKVUOPCW[ML\JXUCKVFDYZKBMSFX^OMSAFNTINTDDMVW[X\THOPXZRVOCJTUTPC\_JSBVX\KAOTBAJBVMZTYAKMNLDI_MFDSSOLXINH__FS^\WQGHGI^C@E[A_CF\AQLDQ\BTMPLDFNVUQ_VM Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:44:53 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:28506 comp.realtime:6139 Date: 2002-08-28T15:44:53+00:00 List-Id: "Mikael Lundqvist" wrote in message news:3D6CEB7E.E6930EAD@avionics.saab.se... > I have heard that the Ada Run Time doesn't handle load > that well. If you have to many tasks or to much input/output > the Runtime gives in so to speak. In that regard you should > be better of with a RTOS. I have not any experience myself > with large Ada programs. Anybody out there who could comment? To be precise, there is no such thing as *The* Ada Run-Time; perhaps you heard about some vendor's buggy *implementation*? There is no reason to expect an implementation to fail (is that what you mean by "give in"?) because there are many tasks or a lot of I/O. Failure in such a case would be a bug. Certainly the performance will vary with the load, just as it would with an (RT)OS present. If the performance degrades more quickly than necessary, that is either a poor implementation or one that is making tradeoffs in other areas that are not appropriate for the specific application. Who knows. For that matter, when Ada is used with an RTOS it is reasonable (and probably typical) to expect that an Ada task is mapped directly to an RTOS thread -- on other words, an Ada task *is* an RTOS thread -- so there would be no difference. That is the case with GNAT on VxWorks, to cite one example vendor and RTOS. We'd be better sticking to facts than what one has heard.