Re: Help with embedded hardware/software platform selection for ADA

[Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>]

On 13-07-03 22:19 , Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message 
> news:kr1t5k$9tq$1@loke.gir.dk...
>> "Luke A. Guest" <laguest@archeia.com> wrote in message 
>> news:237325009394503647.389498laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org...
>>> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote:
>>>> So, IMHO (and much like SPARK), Ravenscar is a tool needed only in very
>>>> specialized circumstances (typically, some sort of certification
>>>> requirement). Otherwise, one ought to forget about it and use Ada as it 
>>>> was
>>>> intended.
>>>
>>> The point of this thread is this, you can't use stock GNAT rts with these
>>> small boards, it has to be custom and is something I'm working on.
>>
>> You can't really use Ada on those very small systems -- you can only use a 
>> tiny Ada subset, one that reduces the advantages of Ada a lot. Unless 
>> you're in the tiny minority of people that prefer the Ada *syntax* to that 
>> of C, you're not really gaining anything.

In addition to the syntax, you are gaining much of the conceptual and
compile-time support of Ada, which is a vast improvement over C, IMO.

>> (Ada witthout exceptions and 
>> most tasking isn't Ada at all, IMHO).

Still much better than C.

>> RRS tried to serve that market back 
>> in the early days and got nowhere.

That was a shame, but I don't think it proves your point.

> Rereading this, it comes off as more negative than I intended.

Good that you also think that it was too negative.

> Ada was 
> designed as a programming language for "programming in the large", and that 
> means that it's strengths don't really show up on tiny programs (which is 
> what you can fit on tiny boards).

Present-day "tiny boards" or microcontrollers can have up to a few
megabytes of code; more if off-chip memory is added. By 1983 standards,
that qualifies as "large".

> That's a problem for Ada if you consider 
> the tiny boards as an entry to working on larger systems down the road; so 
> I'm not against efforts to use Ada on those sorts of systems -- I'm just 
> dubious that they really can be successful (if they make Ada into "just 
> another programming language", it's unclear that anyone will understand why 
> Ada is so great).

I concur with other replies that even an Ada with limited or no tasking
and run-time support still has much of the goodness of Ada.

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
      .      @       .