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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,f822ae7b0f7433c1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Translating an embedded C algorithm References: From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:59:17 +0100 Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:4BTExdhd5gZocgMcaKCryMIkbeA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.249.33 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1169762078 88.72.249.33 (25 Jan 2007 22:54:38 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!peer1.news.newnet.co.uk!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8576 Date: 2007-01-25T22:59:17+01:00 List-Id: 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