Re: Every little bit helps - Publicity in Embedded Systems Development

[anon@anon.org (anon)]

Except for a few OS like Linux or the many favors of BSD, a software 
developer have to pay extra to get the tools to access the full features of 
the OS, even if a free or low cost compiler is provided.  These tools with 
documentation are normally call a Software Development Kit (SDK).

And if you check with IBM, they have two version of Ada. One is a CDROM 
compiler only version which sells for less than $200.00 with what they 
call a media license.  But the full SDK Ada version starts around $15K per 
year which is about the same price for Adacore's GNAT Pro.

So, compilers may be cheap but you will pay and pay big for the addition 
of the SDK.

I just wish that Adacore would think about offering the Ravenscar subsystem 
as a separate package that may be free or they could charge a onetime fee 
for a non-updatable version of the package.

Now, as for the article well its like a reviewer says the movie is Great, but 
there is no valid information on why its GREAT!


In <u-6dnX_qZOC4rh_UnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com>, Martyn Pike <emconuk@gmail.com> writes:
>RasikaSrinivasan@gmail.com wrote:
>> http://www.embedded.com/212902632?cid=NL_embedded
>
>An interesting article, but is it 100% accurate ?
>
>*Some* free tools maybe but I disagree with the implication that all 
>those ports to most mainstream 16 and 32 bit CPUs are free.
>
>As far as I am aware, the profiles referenced here 
>(http://www.adacore.com/home/gnatpro/toolsuite/runtimes/) are not free, 
>not licensed by the GPL and only available to GNAT Pro customers ?
>
>If I call Adacore up and say :
>
>"Where can I download a pre-built binary free/GPL version of GNAT that 
>is hosted on Windows but cross compiles to PowerPC and gives me a 
>Ravenscar Profile compliant runtime for my hypothetical barebones hobby 
>project ?"
>
>I would be told those requirements mean I needed a GNAT Pro subscription 
>which is not free.
>
>I quote the article :
>
> > Tasking is a built-in feature, not a bolt-on requiring
> > expensive dalliances with RTOS vendors
>
>Those expensive dalliances still exist, but I feel the Ada developer 
>actually pays twice.  They pay the RTOS vendor for the OS license and 
>stock tools and then they have to pay Adacore for the Ada tools that 
>layer GNARL/GNULL ontop of the RTOS.
>
>If I chose the language supported by the RTOS vendors stock tools 
>(invariably C/C++) then I only pay the RTOS vendor.  Albeit I would pay 
>in blood, sweat and tears later on in my project lifecycle !
>
>It is very confusing for me, as an Ada developer, to read an article 
>like this and not feel like new converts to the Ada cause are being spammed.
>
>Please correct me if I am wrong.  I am not knocking Jack Ganssle or 
>Adacore for their efforts but I find this article slightly misleading.
>
>Martyn
>
>
>