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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Niklas Holsti Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Help with embedded hardware/software platform selection for ADA Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 01:02:48 +0300 Organization: Tidorum Ltd Message-ID: References: <31f9819e-6509-4d67-acea-4d2ba9a96c04@googlegroups.com> <4csim6j63mk4.1c54vo5v7eu8c.dlg@40tude.net> <51d280e7$0$6556$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <237325009394503647.389498laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net Y2JhGrAJ8bzwcGbuzl9RAQF9J3OjOJpdhRG8wV2x+O5iOGwKnQ Cancel-Lock: sha1:G2CZF0mD9JIgSDQ/VEMWoQDO2nI= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 In-Reply-To: Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:16094 Date: 2013-07-04T01:02:48+03:00 List-Id: On 13-07-03 22:19 , Randy Brukardt wrote: > "Randy Brukardt" wrote in message > news:kr1t5k$9tq$1@loke.gir.dk... >> "Luke A. Guest" wrote in message >> news:237325009394503647.389498laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org... >>> "Randy Brukardt" 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 . @ .