Re: Help with embedded hardware/software platform selection for ADA

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

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message 
news:kr1t5k$9tq$1@loke.gir.dk...
> "Luke A. Guest" <laguest@archeia.com> wrote in message 
> news:237325009394503647.389498laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org...
>> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> 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. (Ada witthout exceptions and 
> most tasking isn't Ada at all, IMHO). RRS tried to serve that market back 
> in the early days and got nowhere.

Rereading this, it comes off as more negative than I intended. 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). 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).

                                              Randy.