Re: STM32F4 GNAT Run Time System - roadmap

["Jedi Tek'Unum" <jeditekunum@gmail.com>]

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 4:19:30 PM UTC-5, Simon Wright wrote:
> Well, I see your point; but my approach was to try for an Ada RTS,
> rather than a BSP. I think you're asking for a BSP written in Ada (or at
> any rate easily usable from Ada.
> 
> The reason for choosing FreeRTOS as a basis was that it decouples the
> Ada RTS from the BSP; so provided _someone_ has ported FreeRTOS to the
> board (and, at least judging by STM, its C BSP) we are at a good
> position to get Ada up and running.
> 
> I don't know what would be involved in "a framework into which someone
> can plug in the details of a new MCU". Sounds like a major exercise.

My 2 cents as a hobbyist uncommitted to Ada...

Supporting a wide variety of chips/boards directly via Ada is not going to happen. It appears that keeping up with a single vendor/series is unproven.

I have no interest in vendor BSPs because I work with multiple vendors.

FreeRTOS seems like the lowest level portable base. Yet it is very limited. I'd rather be writing applications than redeveloping "systems software".

While I have no experience using RTEMS, I understand that it supports Ada. From a distance it seems to be commercially oriented (although free open source) and evolves slowly.

I've been dipping my toes in NuttX which seems to have an active community and is BSD licensed. At the moment this would be my top choice.

My observation is that low-end ARM capabilities are growing rapidly and prices falling. We aren't far from a sub-$20 board that runs FreeBSD/Linux. (I'm doing that on a $19 Pogoplug V4 system - board/case/power - although it is considered obsolete!) I pause to wonder if NuttX or RTEMS is worth the bother.

I'm not suggesting that "Unix" is the best OS we could ever create BUT it is the train that almost everyone is on. (Dare I say the same kind of momentum that keeps C/C++ at the top.)