Re: Ada is almost useless in embedded systems

[adaworks@netcom.com (AdaWorks)]

Ken Garlington (GarlingtonKE@lfwc.lockheed.com) wrote:
: AdaWorks wrote:
: > 
: >   Whatever reasons you may have are not relevant given Ada's record of
: >   success.

: I think that's a little harsh. Certainly with Ada 83 (which was the original
: context of the topic), there were problems with using it for certain classes
: of embedded systems - some technical, some not. None of them were insurmountable,
: but they existed.

  Well, OK, all right, Ken.  I do somemtimes tend to hyperbole.  
  However, the main point is that Ada (even Ada 83) has been used
  successfully for a large variety of projects, both embedded and
  non-embedded.  While it is true that Ada 83 had its difficult 
  issues (or Ada 95 might have been superfluous), it was possible 
  to overcome these difficulties when they manifested themselves.

  I wonder if anyone can cite a high-level language that has no
  difficulties.  

  Regarding your point in an earlier posting about my understating the
  value of Ada, I plead guilty. My purpose was to summarize what
  I see as two important contributions of Ada, but with no intention
  of nullifying any of the other important benefits of the language.
  Certainly, we each have our favorite features about the tools
  in our toolset.  

  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