Re: Translating an embedded C algorithm

[Markus E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

Hi Larry,

Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
>
>> So probably Sofcheck is really able to provide that Ada-to-C compiler for a
>> determined customer, who is willing to pay enough for that. But this is not
>> the case for absolute majority of embedded software developers.
>
> Because they are not determined, or because they want it free ?

The spectre of free software raises its ugly head ...

I'd expect that there is some middle ground between wanting everything
for free and paying any every price.

What some people in this thread might not have considered, is that
something like the following situation: A company intends to build a
prototype embedded system (for control of something or whatever). They
do not know wether the new product will ever fly/sell and they have a
small market (some hundred units, not more) for the next years.

Now -- usually they get the C development system and the evaluation
board rather cheap. On the other site adding the SofCheck compiler
might (a) result in a couple of man weeks of work, retraining of
staff, and of course (b) the additional price/licensing for the
compiler.

Even worse -- if you contract partner requires to guarantee delivery
and fixing of further units for the next ten years (never many, I know
of contracts that require 150 units now with the option to further 400
units during the next ten years), you'll have to pay maintenance or
licensing for ten years (not just for the year when you do most of the
board development.

So, in case of a small unit number and small system the additional per
unit costs might not be negligible. You're just not competitive this
way against a competitor doing it in C only even if they spent a
substantial amount of time going through their C code with a fine comb
to ensure quality.


So yes: Ada is available via the SofCheck compilers or others for more
target than most people think. Still the entry costs into the first
Ada project might be prohibitive. 

And not the paradox: Large companies which already have C/C++ coding
styles are not likely to start a new development line with Ada or
retrain staff. Small companies that could (because there is no real
policy yet) cannot afford Ada because they can't distribute the cost
of many projects yet. 

So what did I want to say? -- There is more to a language decision
than being "not determined" or being a cheapskate ("want it
free"). There are simple economic reasons sometimes why people decide
against Ada (or never really start to consider it seriously). They
might be mistaken in their reasons (might underestimate the
difficulties to keep quality with C or how much Ada might help them
with keeping quality or designing) but nonetheless -- what I really
want to emphasize that those people usually make a rational decision
based on some kind of evaluation, not the kind of decisions on a gut
level you and some of the posters in this thread seem to imply.

Another aspect: A lot of people here seem to assume that quality comes
with the choice of the right language. Nothing could be further from
the truth. I remember a study (IBM I think) in which the effectiveness
of various QA measures and combinations was evaluated. If I remember
right, code review was an essential ingredient ever getting a high
quality: No project achieved high quality without code review. So
perhaps C with a good reviewing process might still be better than Ada
without review.

Regards -- Markus