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: 103376,1a44c40a66c293f3 X-Google-Thread: 1089ad,7e78f469a06e6516 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid1089ad,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!feeder.news-service.com!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!feed.xsnews.nl!border-1.ams.xsnews.nl!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-in.ntli.net!newsrout1-win.ntli.net!ntli.net!news.highwinds-media.com!newspeer1-win.ntli.net!newsfe1-win.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Dr. Adrian Wrigley" Subject: Re: Embedded languages based on early Ada (from "Re: Preferred OS, processor family for running embedded Ada?") User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2 (This is not a psychotic episode. It's a cleansing moment of clarity.) Message-Id: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.vhdl References: <1172192349.419694.274670@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1172239820.896603.222120@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:22:32 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.21.99.109 X-Trace: newsfe1-win.ntli.net 1172748152 82.21.99.109 (Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:22:32 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:22:32 GMT Organization: NTL Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9618 comp.lang.vhdl:7577 Date: 2007-03-01T11:22:32+00:00 List-Id: On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:20:37 +0000, Colin Paul Gloster wrote: ... > Dr. Adrian Wrigley wrote: > > " Something like this > might allow a "rebranding" of Ada (i.e. a new name, with full buzzword > compliance), and would be ideal to address the "new" paradigm of > multicore/multithreaded processor software, using the lightweight > threading and parallelism absent from Ada as we know it. For those who > know Occam, something like the 'PAR' and "SEQ" constructs are missing in > Ada." > > I really fail to see the relevance of multiple processors to > lightweight threading. ???? If you don't have multiple processors, lightweight threading is less attractive than if you do? Inmos/Occam/Transputer was founded on the basis that lightweight threading was highly relevant to multiple processors. Ada has no means of saying "Do these bits concurrently, if you like, because I don't care what the order of execution is". And a compiler can't work it out from the source. If your CPU has loads of threads, compiling code with "PAR" style language concurrency is rather useful and easy. -- Adrian