"Nicolas Cail�n Paul Gloster" <Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org> wrote in
message news:3DAFEE75.9BF44775@ACM.org...
> Manuel Collado wrote:
>
> "We are porting some legacy Modula-2/C code to Ada. The code uses
> low-level facilities from Modula-2 and C. We would like to port it
to
> clean Ada[..]"
>
> I noticed that in the book "Safety-critical computer systems"
written
> by Neil Storey and published in 1996 by Addison-Wesley with ISBN
> 020 1427 877 that were more compilers available for embedded
targets,
> at least according to Neil Storey or the author(s) of a study
looking
> at Pascal; C; Ada 83; Modula 2; assemblies; and about three other
> languages he referred to, Modula-2 would be preferrable to use than
Ada.
> What are your views on this?

That is not the conclusion I would draw from the text.  See for
example page 224:

"This factor [use of mature tools versus new ones] has implications
for the use of languages such as Modula-2.  From Table 9.2 it is clear
that a suitable subset of Modula-2 has many of the attractive
attributes associated with safety-critical software.  However, the
comparatively little use of this language within this field is a
distinct disadvantage.  Some safety-critical applications are using
Modula-2 ... and perhaps, in time, sufficient experience will be
gained to allow it to become a preferred language in this area."

I'm not aware of the "internationally recognized safe subset" for
Modula-2 that his tables (and the text on pg. 223) indicate exist.
Does anyone have a reference?

--
Patrick Rogers                       Consulting and Training in:
http://www.classwide.com       Real-Time/OO Languages
progers@classwide.com          Hard Deadline Schedulability Analysis
(281)648-3165                            Software Fault Tolerance