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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,de555fb9935cdff1,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-07 10:55:12 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Beard, Frank" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Restructuring of Ada (was RE: Ada on Cypress CY7C646 (8051)?) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 13:54:26 -0400 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="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 991936511 67369 137.194.161.2 (7 Jun 2001 17:55:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 17:55:11 +0000 (UTC) To: "'comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org'" Return-Path: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.4 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8335 Date: 2001-06-07T13:54:26-04:00 -----Original Message----- From: Marin David Condic [mailto:marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com] > I think the problem with subsets is quite a tangled web. Not having an > "official" subset for small computers means that a) nobody uses Ada for > small computers or b) at best you end up with hundreds of incompatible > subsets. History has been more towards A. You can't get Ada for most small > machines. Hence the guys using those sorts of small machines have no > interest in Ada. I don't know that there is any good answer to this. > Demanding "One and only one Ada" is a good thing in many respects, but how > does one then make it possible to have Ada on a tiny computer? > > MDC > > "Brian Catlin" wrote in message > > news:9fmfju$43n$1@slb0.atl.mindspring.net... > > I know that Robert Dewar had a conniption back in '95 > > when someone suggested subsetting Ada to get it onto an > > 8051. > > > > -Brian > > It seems like Ada needs to be restructured a bit. I like the idea of having Annexes, but, as others have pointed out, they're optional. We've had discussions in the past about adding new capabilities to the language, whether or not to add them to the core or annexes, and others had concerns that we would no longer have a language suitable for embedded programming if we added the features to the core. It seems to me that maybe we should take the approach of having the "core" be everything needed to support embedded programming, then have the "expanded core" be the additional features for general programming, and then the Annexes for the specialized enhancements. That way, Ada compilers for embedded systems would only need to support the embedded set. Ada compilers for non-embedded applications would have to support through the "expanded core", and the Annexes would remain as they are. Just a thought. I'll leave it to the Ada brain-trust to consider the feasibility. Frank Beard