Re: Ada used in General Aviation (GA) applications?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Thu, 13 May 2004 12:01:02 GMT, Marin David Condic
<nobody@noplace.com> wrote:

>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> >
> > I believe you are wrong here. In the area we are working, each large
> > vendor of an embedded application is surrounded by a swarm of smaller
> >  firms to which it outsource software development and testing. Each
> > satellite firm has the complete development tool chain. These tools
> > are very expensive. It is a very lucrative market. [Some tool chain
> > vendors just take GCC, build loader, add a pair windows and sell that
> >  for many k$.]

>It tends to not work that way here. Embedded systems software is seldom
>farmed out to subcontractors. I'd agree that there is some market for
>compilers here, and it isn't as grim as I characterized it. But
>basically you find hyundreds of companies out there selling some little
>embedded board or chip set and they have a development kit with a C
>compiler & all the goodies sitting right there and they're practically
>giving it away in order to sell boards.

Right, but I am not talking about naked boards. Little could be done
there, here I agree with you. I am talking about

1) the next layer. Many our customers need a board + multitasking +
TCP/IP stack + USB + field bus. They also want it portable [that
becomes a real issue for many customers.] Isn't it what Ada is for? 

2) the whole tool chain. You don't get it with a board.

>How is some alternative vendor
>going to come in there with an Ada compiler and convince the developer
>he needs to use theirs (without all the supporting goodies) and it will 
>only cost him $20,000 a year in annual support contracts?

This is approximately what a C based tool chain costs.

>It won't fly unless the compiler is right there with the rest of the
>development kit and doesn't cost a fortune to get.

Right

> > No. It would take too long. I am afraid that Ada is missing the
> > embedded programming market which in the foreseeable future will
> > become no less important than the conventional one.

>It wouldn't take too long if Ada focused in on a branch of software
>systems to which its existing strengths play and whos practitioners are 
>not already Ada-haters. The embedded market already hates Ada with the 
>white hot intensity of a thousand suns for a variety of historical 
>reasons. In language surveys "Ada" ranks behind "Other" in languages 
>used to program embedded systems.

I am afraid, that's in the past. Nowadays many are just unaware that
Ada exists.

>I'd *love* to see Ada get some nice 
>share of the embedded market, but I think it is lost for the time being 
>because it is too expensive in which to play and has too much historic 
>resistance to overcome.

But the point is that embedded rapidly grows. I do not propose to go
after the present customers. No, we should go after the new ones.
Those who know nothing about Ada. They would readily switch to any
language other than C. And they will, unfortunately, to C++, C#, Java,
but not to Ada!

>If Ada went for something related - like communications or math or 
>related fields - and tried to target that audience, they might be more 
>receptive. That and they don't demand as much support gagetry just in 
>order to be a player. So you can get in there easier and start building 
>a market and because it might have a connection to the embedded world, 
>it lets you gradually start to try to get into that arena.

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de