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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Point a beginner in the right direction? Cheap bare-board to run with a RTOS for running ADA Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 15:10:19 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <8a3093bb-90b3-4081-9b0b-dfde5aa6b851@googlegroups.com> <993despcuk1d.1ifczvyo501px.dlg@40tude.net> <04244d3e-2a29-4980-b7a1-0dad4569caa2@googlegroups.com> <1czx18gollwt5$.n1wi7pmd0bqh$.dlg@40tude.net> <81c8e4a2-f0bb-4559-b2b7-0eba08ddca99@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1373400623 5554 69.95.181.76 (9 Jul 2013 20:10:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 20:10:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:16225 Date: 2013-07-09T15:10:19-05:00 List-Id: wrote in message news:81c8e4a2-f0bb-4559-b2b7-0eba08ddca99@googlegroups.com... On Tuesday, July 9, 2013 12:51:39 AM UTC-7, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: ... > No technology ever dies, it becomes niche. Ada's advantage in the niche is > > minimal. Its advantage on mainstream SBCs is potentially huge. >But the difference is that nobody is arguing that Ada is not suitable for >SBCs. However, > you are dismissing Ada on microcontrollers, of which tens of billions are > sold each year > (big niche!). You are making this an either/or question, which it most > certainly is not. How > is it that you have been appointed to determine where Ada can be > beneficial, and where > it cannot? He hasn't, he's just telling the truth. On tiny systems, 90% of Ada's advantages are negated; you're talking about systems with no exceptions, extremely limited tasking (Ravenscar is far too limited to be usable outside of the hands of experts with lots of time to spend on analysis), very limited numerics (usually integers only), and that by their very nature have to be small (so the benefit of Ada's program structuring features like private types and child packages are hardly noticable, except in a negative way as they often will slightly increase code size). Such a language is completely different than the Ada I know, and it's dubious to call it Ada at all. Moreover, the advantages it still has are impossible to explain to someone that is using some other high-level language -- most of the code written would end up as C-in-Ada-syntax and the programmers would never find out why that is bad (because it wouldn't matter on those systems). The truth is, you don't *need* Ada to program such systems, and on such systems it's "just another programming language", especially from the perspective of the average programmer (as opposed to the Ada true believer). It wouldn't cause the sort of correctness improvements that you see when using Ada on larger systems, so it hard to see why people would pay extra for it. And if no one wants to pay for it, it isn't going to exist (almost all great Open Source software has its roots in for-pay companys). Randy.