* Re: A comparison of Ada and Modula 3 [not found] ` <4fu2ji$l76@beatty.slip.netcom.com> @ 1996-02-17 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1996-02-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Derek asked "How do the debuggers available for GNAT and SRC Modula-3 compare? What about debugging into calls to a foreign subsystem written in C or (shudder) C++?" gdb is very happy to deal with multi-language programs, it automaticaly switches its command interpretor personality to match the language you ar currently debugging (e.g. you type a = b if you are debugging an Ada unit, and (a == b) if you are debugging a C unit. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <JSA.96Feb7143151@organon.com>]
[parent not found: <NAYERI.96Feb9102100@tahoe.gte.com>]
[parent not found: <311BB3AC.4428@escmail.orl.mmc.com>]
[parent not found: <dewar.824051108@schonberg>]
[parent not found: <4fnvil$n84@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov>]
* Re: A comparison of Ada and Modula 3 [not found] ` <4fnvil$n84@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov> @ 1996-02-20 0:00 ` AdaWorks 1996-02-21 0:00 ` Don Harrison 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: AdaWorks @ 1996-02-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kennel (mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov) wrote: : Robert Dewar (dewar@cs.nyu.edu) wrote: : > T.E.D. asks regarding implementing GC in GNAT: : > How tough could it be? :-) In embedded real-time systems, automatic garbage collection can be a serious liability. Ada, the language, must work consistently over a wide-range of applications. Therefore, it is appropriate that GC not be intrinsic to the language. On the other hand, Ada 95 takes the very sensible approach of including a package for Storage Pool management, which, when used with another package, Ada.Finalization, allows the developer to carefully manage the garbage collection processs and even make it automatic when necessary to the design. Furthermore, the Ada general access type feature eliminates many of the issues associated with garbage collection one found in Ada 83 because of the rules related to accessibility and scope. Langauges that consistently do automatic garbage collection will not perform correctly in embedded, hard, real-time (HRTS) weapons systems. They work fine, though, for desk-top systems in which safety is not an issue. Richard Riehle adaworks@netcom.com -- richard@adaworks.com AdaWorks Software Engineering Suite 27 2555 Park Boulevard Palo Alto, CA 94306 (415) 328-1815 FAX 328-1112 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: A comparison of Ada and Modula 3 1996-02-20 0:00 ` AdaWorks @ 1996-02-21 0:00 ` Don Harrison 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Don Harrison @ 1996-02-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Richard Riehle wrote: [...] : Langauges that consistently do automatic garbage collection will not : perform correctly in embedded, hard, real-time (HRTS) weapons systems. : They work fine, though, for desk-top systems in which safety is not an : issue. This is certainly true for single processor architectures. There is a trend towards parallel architectures (such as SMP - Shared Memory Processing) becoming more affordable. When they enter mainstream computing sometime in the not-too-distant future, background processing (such as GC) can be done on a separate processor from the RT application proper. Then, GC will be a viable proposition for HRTS. : Richard Riehle : adaworks@netcom.com Don. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: A comparison of Ada and Modula 3 [not found] ` <NAYERI.96Feb7004643@tahoe.gte.com> [not found] ` <NAYERI.96Feb9184132@tahoe.gte.com> [not found] ` <JSA.96Feb7143151@organon.com> @ 1996-02-21 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1996-02-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <adaworksDn32G8.14B@netcom.com> adaworks@netcom.com (AdaWorks) writes: > In embedded real-time systems, automatic garbage collection can be > a serious liability... >... > Langauges that consistently do automatic garbage collection will not > perform correctly in embedded, hard, real-time (HRTS) weapons systems. > They work fine, though, for desk-top systems in which safety is not an > issue. I hope you doned your nomex suit before sending this out! :-) /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1996-02-21 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <4f48un$scs@nntpa.cb.att.com> [not found] ` <NAYERI.96Feb7004643@tahoe.gte.com> [not found] ` <NAYERI.96Feb9184132@tahoe.gte.com> [not found] ` <4flukd$82l@rational.rational.com> [not found] ` <DMoqKp.MIB@thomsoft.com> [not found] ` <NEWTNews.824218979.26620.geneo@medusa.ppp.rational.com> [not found] ` <4fu2ji$l76@beatty.slip.netcom.com> 1996-02-17 0:00 ` A comparison of Ada and Modula 3 Robert Dewar [not found] ` <JSA.96Feb7143151@organon.com> [not found] ` <NAYERI.96Feb9102100@tahoe.gte.com> [not found] ` <311BB3AC.4428@escmail.orl.mmc.com> [not found] ` <dewar.824051108@schonberg> [not found] ` <4fnvil$n84@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov> 1996-02-20 0:00 ` AdaWorks 1996-02-21 0:00 ` Don Harrison 1996-02-21 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox