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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,630c12e823d1bdf4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-01-10 14:29:39 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn14feed!wn12feed!worldnet.att.net!207.217.77.102!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail From: Richard Riehle Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada Compiler Pricing (was Re: Hijacking a Thread was RE: New Ada compiler for .NET) Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:38:37 -0800 Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering Message-ID: <3E1F4B6D.A8D5172F@adaworks.com> References: <1040653133.613605@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3e18f3f3_1@news.tm.net.my> <6KwmrO7CZtnj@eisner.encompasserve.org> <1041910244.361888@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3E1E5604.5030209@nospam.adrianhoe.com> <3E1EA349.6B97C328@adaworks.com> Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.bb.68.83 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 10 Jan 2003 22:29:43 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:32894 Date: 2003-01-10T22:29:43+00:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote: > You mention DDC-I and Irvine. Out of curiosity, what sort of price range are > their compilers going for these days and do they target anything > interesting? As to pricing, I would rather leave that to the respective companies. I can say the compilers are not inexpensive, primarily because they target embedded targets with carefully designed run-time environments that are intended to serve applications that require a high-level of dependability. When one examines the world of Ada carefully, it becomes clear that creating an RTE is no trivial exercise. It is easy enough to generate code, but for embedded environments (what Joyce Tokar calls, "deeply embedded"), one must craft the RTE so it supports all of the generated code in a predictable way. It is almost like writing a small operating system for each platform. DDC-I supports a wide variety of embedded targets. Irvine is a C-Path compiler so it can be ported to many different platforms. Once again, it is creating that pesky RTE that makes it expensive to build such compilers. I overlooked Green Hills in my earlier posting. We have clients who are quite happy with their compilers too. The important point is that GNAT, for all of the good will toward Ada it has generated, is not the only game in town. ACT has done a remarkable job with their current business model and produced compilers of excellent quality. That is just the first step when considering "deeply embedded" systems. It is not enough to generate good code. One of the key elements in selecting an Ada compiler for a "deeply embedded" system is to evaluate the relative qualities of the RTE. This is a point often overlooked by those who naively believe that C++ is as relevant as Ada for embedded systems. One reason I characterized the new owners of Aonix as a bunch of ignoramouses is that they overlooked this point and laid-off some of their best people, the people who knew how to differentiate their product from others by creating reliable, stable, and efficient RTE's. I'm not sure whether they have learned the error of their decision yet, but one can hope they have. Richard Riehle