Re: Should light runtimes get more consideration?

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

As noted on the ARG Github, you confused the Unbounded version of 
Text_Buffers with an unbounded string (completely unrelated things), and 
moreover, failed to notice that the language provides multiple ways to use a 
Bounded Text_Buffer instead. So the language addresses this particular 
concern.

I don't know if GNAT implements all of those ways (in particular, the 
restriction Max_Image_Length), but that is hardly the fault of the language!

For anyone else interested in this particular discussion, I recommend 
reading and following up on the ARG Githib issue rather than here 
(https://github.com/Ada-Rapporteur-Group/User-Community-Input/issues/67).

                 Randy.


"Kevin Chadwick" <kc-usenet@chadwicks.me.uk> wrote in message 
news:ueug62$2fvor$1@dont-email.me...
>I created the issue below a little while ago. Today I wonder whether Ada
> 2022s 'Image attribute on records use of Unbounded strings is for good
> reason. Is it an oversight that Bounded String would work with the new
> light runtime or String with all runtimes including the older zero
> footprint runtimes?
>
> Perhaps it was decided that a light runtime would not use this feature? 
> and
> I can cerrainly avoid it. However I use a light runtime with 100s of
> kilobytes or ram and many gigabytes of flash.
>
> Ada is a much nicer language than Rust which uses unsafe all over for
> embedded but one thing that is interesting is that I believe all Rust code
> can be run easily on any target. Should Ada aspire to that?
>
> On the other hand micros are becoming multiprocessor bringing more demand
> for tasking (protected types are not compatible with a light runtime) but
> personally I believe multi chip single core designs are far better than
> multicore and not only due to the impossibility of side channel attacks
> like spectre.
>
> https://github.com/Ada-Rapporteur-Group/User-Community-Input/issues/67
>
> -- 
> Regards, Kc