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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!convex!spray From: spray@convex.com (Rob Spray) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Critique of SEI's Ada DARK project Message-ID: Date: 21 May 91 20:33:31 GMT References: Sender: usenet@convex.com (news access account) Distribution: comp.lang.ada Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA Nntp-Posting-Host: trojan.convex.com List-Id: One concern I have always had about DARK is how it got funded targetted to a processor that is not available in a radiation-hardened configuration. Several embedded systems I am familiar with are required to use full MIL-SPEC processors. My experience with several distributed systems is that despite all good intentions, they are very processor dependent. I suspect that DARK would have been much harder on a processor like the Intel 80286 or 1750A that were the rad-hard choices that had an Ada compiler when DARK was started. Now, in that time-frame, the state-of-the-art for compilers and runtime systems for the 68K was far ahead of the other machines. Also, workstations like the SUN and Apollo were available for hosts and targets. So the costs and risks to DARK's preceived success were lower with the 68K. However, the result is a system that, IMHO, has minimal chance of being ported to a rad-hard environment. Tell me I'm wrong. --Rob Spray --spray@convex.com --214/497-4110 Disclaimer: This is my own cynical conjecture, and may not reflect the opinions of employers past or present. Your opinions may vary. Ted Holden's opinion will doubtless be different. But then I would bet I've worked on more rad-hard distributed Ada systems than he has.