W. Wesley Groleau x4923 wrote:
> > > Embedded Systems Programming should've
> > > safeguarded against multiple voting.
> Maybe they did. They claimed that 50% Ada was bogus. 90% would certainly
> be inaccurate, but 50% is almost believable.
> And, as Ann pointed out, neither 50% nor 90% proves anyone voted twice.
> > They were pretty naive.
> In their blind devotion to C they are worse than naive.
> I recently read one of their articles on "how to choose a language" for an
> embedded project. Basically, the algorithm was:
> 1. Put the choices on a list: Assembler, C, Java, other.
> 2. Reject 'other' without even naming it (them)
> 3. Reject Java because it's not ready for prime time.
> 4. List all the benefits of C over assembler.
> 5. Ask, "Do we really want to waste time with
> assembly language?"
> 6. Hope that no one notices that many of the benefits you listed
> are much greater than C in certain unpopular languages.
> Wes Groleau
A propos this discussion, please note the following quote from Doug
Jensen (a well-known and respected figure in the real-time community),
in the Foreword to the soon-to-be-published book "The Real-Time
Specification for Java(tm)":
"Ada 95, including its Real-Time Systems Annex D, has probably been the
most successful real-time language, in terms of both adoption and
real-time technology. One reason is that Ada is unusually effective
(among real-time languages and also operating systems) across the
real-time computing system spectrum, from programming-in-the-small in
traditional device-level control subsystems, to programming-in-the-large
in enterprise command and control systems. Despite that achievement, a
variety of nontechnical factors crippled Ada's commercial success."
Ada Core Technologies
79 Tobey Road; Belmont, MA 02478; USA
+1 (617) 489-4027 (voice); +1 (617) 489-4009 (FAX)
[log in to unmask]