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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac55ec18f7b0a53c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-04 14:34:52 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!btnet-peer0!btnet!news5-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news6-win.server.ntlworld.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Chris Campbell" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: Ada and embedded applications X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:30:40 +0100 NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.252.147.14 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news6-win.server.ntlworld.com 991690184 62.252.147.14 (Mon, 04 Jun 2001 22:29:44 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 22:29:44 BST Organization: ntlworld News Service Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8099 Date: 2001-06-04T22:30:40+01:00 List-Id: "Robert A Duff" wrote in message news:wccsnhg6j6v.fsf@world.std.com... > "Chris Campbell" writes: > > > One poster claimed that Ada was not used in some embedded devices because of > > memory overheads for exception handling. > > Sounds like nonsense, but it's not completely clear what that poster > meant. This is the exact text (and not my regurgutation of it which is vague). -- [ ... ] > This is what I meant with "worship". Of course you're right, it's almost > sure, that there exists a C compiler for that hand-holdable device. > But why there is _only_ a C compiler for it? And not Pascal? Or Ada? > Perhaps even Java could be possible? Pascal (or at least something that looks roughly like Pascal) would be a reasonable possibility if everybody agreed exactly what that "roughly like Pascal" language really ought to be. Ada probably is not reasonable for _most_ such devices. Ada requires exception handling, which takes up quite a bit of memory. In embedded devices, price matters a LOT, and more memory means a higher price. Ada _does_ get used in embedded systems with budgets to support it (e.g. the aerospace industry) but in the lower-end of the market, exception handling makes it unusable (and the same goes for C++). Consider that at work right now, I'm working on some code for a PIC 16C55, which has a total of 512 bytes (no, not Kbytes, but bytes) of program memory available. It might be possible to get an Ada program to run in that, but if so it'll take somebody a LOT smarter than me to do it. In addition, Ada is a large, complex language so porting it to a new processor tends to be a relatively slow, expensive process. If a company has a choice between using C and waiting 6 months for an Ada compiler to get finished, there's often little real choice at all. -- -- Jerry Coffin on alt.os.development in post Re: using C to develop an OS -- Chris Campbell