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,ac55ec18f7b0a53c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-04 13:02:53 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada and embedded applications Message-ID: References: Organization: LJK Software Date: 4 Jun 2001 16:02:49 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.44.122.34 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 991684972 216.44.122.34 (Mon, 04 Jun 2001 20:02:52 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 20:02:52 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8086 Date: 2001-06-04T16:02:49-05:00 List-Id: In article , "Chris Campbell" writes: > Hi, > > On another group a discussion about various languages errupted and it took a > while to get anything positive out of it(it's started as the old "my language is > best" debate). Now the discussion seems to be focussed on distance from > hardware, like C being relatively close to hardware. This is largely irrelevant > background. > > One poster claimed that Ada was not used in some embedded devices because of > memory overheads for exception handling. Claiming it was used in embedded > devices in industries that had budgets that supported it (e.g. the aerospace > industry). Efficiency of exception handling obviously varies among implementations, but I worry about any design that is going to encounter so many exceptions that their performance becomes relevant.