Re: Ada, the best language with the not-so-best tool chain

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

<mjsilva@scriptoriumdesigns.com> wrote in message 
news:a929d92c-6f33-4c9b-8a1c-1a43ba403758@googlegroups.com...
...
>Ada can certainly run on these parts (how much memory did the MIL-STD-1750A
>designs have 20-25 years ago?)  This is an enormous untapped market, and a 
>lot of us
>wonder why the heck it is being ignored.

Simple math. The expectation is that development systems for this sort of 
board are free (or more accurately, included in the purchase price). (more 
below).

>Furthermore, it is a market where the next generation of students and 
>hobbyists are
>moving to.  Arduino has been very big, and it is now expanding to 32 bits. 
>ST sells
>development boards for $10-$15 built around very powerful ARM parts. This 
>level of
>hardware is begging for Ada support, but it's not there.  If people could 
>program this
>level of hardware in Ada they'd quickly come to appreciate the vast 
>advantage Ada
>offers in embedded & realtime work.  I can't fathom why GNAT and Ada 
>supporters
>don't want to get on board.

You're not trying too hard if you "can't fathom" why this makes no sense. 
There's no money to be made, and as with everything, it comes down to money. 
As I noted, such development systems are typically free. Simple math shows 
the problem: $0*<enormous number> = $0. I'm pretty sure that AdaCore's many 
employees don't work for free, so there has to be a higher revenue 
projection than this in order to make a project viable. If people were 
actually willing to pay for such systems, it might be worth taking a chance 
(because $49*<enormous number> does work; that was Borland's model back in 
the day) -- but in today's software climate, no way.

A company might develop something if a major customer pays for part of the 
development (RRS usually split the development costs with customers if we 
retained the rights to the resulting products). But in tha absence of that, 
it simply doesn't make any sense.

Obviously, some group of hobbyists could get to together and create 
something (which is where the AVR-Ada and Mindstorms Ada came from), but 
it's a big job and its unlikely that many targets would come from it. And 
the Ada community just isn't large enough to have all of the bases covered 
(or even a reasonable percentage).

That's the reality -- and it isn't likely to change. Unless the board 
manufacturers themselves start supporting Ada development systems, I don't 
think there will ever be many choices for bare/small targets. (Especially as 
Ada *never* has been used for small targets, even back in the 1980s when 
there was a lot of pressure from the DoD to do so.)

Feel free to prove me wrong. I'd surely be happy if that was the case - I 
want to see Ada succeed. (I spent most of my younger years fighting against 
economics -- and economics *always* wins in the end.)

                                       Randy.