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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,81bb2ce65a3240c3
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.236.170 with SMTP id uv10mr10713291pbc.4.1335577096842;
        Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 r9ni106449pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BrianG <me@null.email>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X?
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:38:10 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <jnfhm7$e12$1@dont-email.me>
References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5>
 <855277.360.1335540781903.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjj38>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 01:38:16 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="5MNoRlpIAhOS/jy0qxZerw";
	logging-data="14370"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX194q0ZzAMRdHV/8xVJp5Ye4"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Thunderbird/3.1.16
In-Reply-To: <855277.360.1335540781903.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjj38>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+uM/cp6n9FmYMWb3mcCSSjTjoYA=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-04-27T21:38:10-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 04/27/2012 11:33 AM, mjsilva@scriptoriumdesigns.com wrote:
> I want Ada to be as easy to use on smaller, popular 32-bit embedded processors as C is now.  And I don't want to have to wait until 202x.
>
> And I'm continuously surprised that hardly anybody else seems to think this is a goal worth pursuing.

I don't think it's an uncommon position here, but how do you pursue 
this, and who does the pursuing?  I doubt language-designers can do much 
(except add curly-brackets :-).

It takes convincing the embedded processor makers/distributors (or the 
community) to make compilers available.

Of course, if you can get GCC on the processor, you can also have GNAT - 
without tasking, run time, etc.  "No_Run_Time" is not difficult. 
Perhaps it would help to have a "Minimal_Run_Time" also (e.g. the 
features available using nothing but the C runtime available on a basic 
GCC port - preferably with an Ada flavor, not just a binding), at least 
for GNAT.  Then you need any processor- or system-specific library bindings.

-- 
---
BrianG
000
@[Google's email domain]
.com