Re: Ada 95 for an ARM-based bare board?

[Dmitry A.Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

Richard Riehle wrote:

> Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
>> Not necessarily, ACT has developed many ports of GNAT at our expense, but
>> only when we know there is a real market out there (well a couple of
>> times we have skipped that step and got burned).
> 
> The list of  dead Silicon Valley companies who spread themselves too
> thin by failing to concentrate on their core business and their paying
> customers is long and depressing.
> 
> ACT, and other Ada compiler publishers can do more for Ada by
> providing excellent products and service to a few satisfied
> customers.   This appears to be the philosophy of ACT, and we
> see some wisdom in it.
> 
> In time, when an inventory of Ada success stories is available for
> public release, those of us involved in tool building, or compiler
> building, or training, or consulting, or applications building will
> have the satisfaction of our contribution, big or small, to those
> successes.

Also, the bottom line is - what is possibly good for Ada is likely not good 
for vendor X. I have no information to argue with that. Let it be true, but 
the problem here is, what will be with that "core business" when Ada will 
finally disappear? To my view embedded is a *core business* for Ada. So far 
nobody argued that. The PC-world was effectively lost for Ada. And we all 
saw how impossibly hard it is to get back there. This scenario repeats with 
embedded. The new (32-bit) embedded market will be definitely greater than 
one of PC's. Every device from a refrigerator to a hammer (:-)) will be 
"intelligent". Game market was already mentioned, etc.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de