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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,641660bd28dd798d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-06 08:33:07 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!opentransit.net!proxad.net!proxad.net!freenix!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Robert C. Leif" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Embedded Ada Development Tools Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 08:32:41 -0700 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1023377587 3875 137.194.161.2 (6 Jun 2002 15:33:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 15:33:07 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: X-Envelope-From: rleif@rleif.com X-Envelope-To: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:25409 Date: 2002-06-06T08:32:41-07:00 From: Bob Leif To: Marin Condic et al. The simplest way to port Ada to a small processor is to use a J code compiler. This is absolutely not a new idea. It goes back to at least UCSD Pascal. The best approach would be to a have a native J code processor which included an ADC, DAC, watch-dog timer, and USB port. -----Original Message----- From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org [mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org] On Behalf Of Marin David Condic Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 9:55 AM To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Subject: Re: Embedded Ada Development Tools I've seen Ada for 16-bit processors, but you're point is taken. Most Ada implementations target 32-bit or bigger machines and while this is nice for some of the more grandiose projects, its not where most of the little commercial things live. And of course, even if it were possible to get an Ada compiler to target some small 8-bit processor, we'd still be stuck with that chicken-and-egg problem. Developers have no Ada compiler for these targets from which to choose, so their interests go elsewhere to what they can get. (Generally, C)Compiler-writers won't make something for that target because its a lot of work and they don't see any interested developers to justify the work. Such lack of compilers leads the developers to conclude that it isn't possible to get Ada targeted to their processors and fuels a lot of the misconceptions about Ada (too slow, too big, etc.) Maybe the correct answer is to do what seems to be the current direction - get Ada used in more PC/Workstation apps where the targeting job is a bit easier and as it gets more popular in this domain, it starts making it easier to justify targeting more embedded targets because of programmer familiarity, development of tools, etc. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com "John Kern" wrote in message news:3CFE29BB.A7D22E77@NOSPAM.visteon.com... > > I suspect a lot of embedded projects start off small, (8/16-bit) and > eventually graduate to the 32-bitters where switching to Ada would > involve abandoning proven legacy C code. Ada seems to be mostly for > markets which have always though big (like aerospace) as opposed to the > industries started small (like automotive.) >