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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 115aec,f41f1f25333fa601 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,a3ca574fc2007430 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: ken@nrtt.demon.co.uk (Ken Tindell) Subject: Re: Ada and Automotive Industry Date: 1996/11/13 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 196214028 distribution: world x-nntp-posting-host: nrtt.demon.co.uk references: <55ea3g$m1j@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3280DA96.15FB@hso.link.com> <1996Nov6.210957.3070@ole.cdac.com> <5683sk$bsc@news.ccit.arizona.edu> organization: Northern Real-Time Technologies Ltd. reply-to: ken@nrtt.demon.co.uk newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.realtime Date: 1996-11-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <5683sk$bsc@news.ccit.arizona.edu> frank@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (Frank Manning) wrote: > In article <1996Nov6.210957.3070@ole.cdac.com> James Thiele > It's a myth that Ada compilers are unrealistic for small > microcontrollers. There's nothing that prevents anybody from > implementing an Ada subset that could both (a) be validated and > (b) fit harmoniously on a small machine. Now, if you did actually rustle up the money and did form a company and went ahead and did build a compiler and it did turn out as efficient as a C compiler for the same target and I could buy it for less than $5000 then your point would be valid. The reality of the situation, of course, is that there isn't a big enough market for such a compiler otherwise Tasking, Keil, Microtec, Intermetrics, et al would have 8-bit Ada compilers.. > I remember back in October 1995 when we had a big discussion about > the merits of Ada for small microcontrollers. Here's what Robert > Eachus and Mike Felman said at the time: > > In article <4920s0$kqd@felix.seas.gwu.edu> > mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes: > >> [...] >> >> (1) it is premature to write off the potential for an Ada/8051; >> >> (2) some of the complaints about Ada being "too big" for the 8051 >> may well be made out of ignorance of the possibilities; >> >> (3) a GCC target and a port of the GNAT runtime is the way to go. Like you find gcc targeted at the 8051? gcc ports to 8-bit devices have been uniformly bad (no fault of the people doing the ports, either). So take with a pinch of salt any claims that Ada-95-because-GNAT-because-gcc is great for 8-bit devices.