LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA Archives

TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA  April 1998

TEAM-ADA April 1998

Subject:

Re: Information request

From:

Stanley Allen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Stanley Allen <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 24 Apr 1998 03:05:05 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (151 lines)

Chris Sparks wrote:
>
> I need some help in getting some information on the projects that have
> used GNAT for real-time embedded applications.  My lead is concerned
> that GNAT will not be suitable, however, I need proof to dispel his
> concerns.  The situation we are coming across here at work is that we
> are going to use another compiler vendor.  We currently have a
> dependence on VADS.  My lead wants as minimal an impact, however, I
> don't see this happening.  I suggested using some of Ada 95's new
> library support for tasking and he felt that it was not stable enough
> to use.  Any help is always appreciated.
>

Why do you have a desire to use GNAT for this project
rather than the other vendor?  If the other vendor
is not providing Ada 95, then your job is to present
the advantages of moving to Ada 95 as a motivator to
the use of GNAT.  If the other vendor is providing
Ada 95, then you need to know which is the best compiler
for your needs; if you believe this is GNAT, then you
have to present these reasons to your lead.  If it's a
choice between GNAT and a different Ada 95 product and
you want your project to use GNAT, you should re-direct
your question to the GNAT chat list -- I'm sure the
other vendors on the Team-Ada list are not going to
present reasons why GNAT should be chosen for your
project!

If your goal is to get your Ada 83 code to work under
an Ada 95 compiler (later we'll talk about using the
Ada 95 features, but first things first), then it
is up to you to demonstrate that this will cause
no major impact to the project.  Project management
is generally horrified by the prospect of changing
out any of the substrate technology on the project
(the OS, the compiler, the database vendor), even
if it's just going from one Ada 83 compiler to
another.  And depending on the project, this
attitude is quite justifiable.  If your project code
is extremely dependent on VADS-specific features and
implementation quirks, then you've got a tough
row to hoe.  One project in my company tried to
migrate from VADS to GNAT and found it nearly
impossible to do so; another project in my company
doing the same thing had few problems.  The first
project was doing a *lot* of VADS-specific stuff
(also, they were using one of the earlier versions
of GNAT which was not mature enough for the job);
the second had consciously limited dependency on
VADS features.  I'm sure you'll hear the same kinds
of reports (both successes and failures) from people
who've moved from any Ada 83 compiler X to any Ada 95
compiler Y.

My understanding is that Ada 95's designers had this
goal for upward compatibility with Ada 83: that
moving from an Ada 83 compiler to an Ada 95
compiler should be about the same effort as moving
from one Ada 83 compiler to another.  This has
proved true in a number of cases I know of
personally.

Note that all of the above discussion relates to
the situation in which your main goal is to move
your Ada 83 code to an Ada 95 compiler without
making any design changes.  This is absolutely
the first step; if you can't do this with small
impact, you will not persuade your management.

I suggest a pilot project to try compiling your
current Ada 83 code under an Ada 95 compiler.
The goal of this would be to come up with a set
of "lessons learned" notes and a go/no-go
recommendation.

In order to convince your lead that Ada 95 features
should be used, you are better off (1) doing this in
a very project-specific way and (2) recommending only
incremental design changes to make use of specific
Ada 95 features.

Project-specific means that you must take a close
look at your project and take detailed notes about
the Ada 95 features that can supply advantages to the
project.  General arguments about the superior nature
of Ada 95 are not enough.  If there is a weakness in
the current system that can be improved by the use of
an Ada 95 feature, note that.  If there is some external
interface that can be used to good effect in your
system, and that interface is in Ada 95 (for instance
CORBA), then that can be noted.  If portability is an
issue in your project and there is some part of your
system that is currently non-portable because Ada 83
did not provide a portable way to get the job done, it
is possible that Ada 95 has provided a portable way
to do that job.  (When the Ada 95 guys where I work
put together a list the ways in which Ada 95 could
help our project, this aspect was a big factor.  A
great many things that used to be compiler-specific
in Ada 83 are now standard in Ada 95).  If your
project is very performance-sensitive, then note
any Ada 95 features which might improve performance
(like protected objects to replace some tasks).
Our group made a six-page discussion of Ada 95
features that might be of benefit to our project;
the entire discussion was tied to project goals.

It is very important to recommend only incremental
design changes in the early stages of using Ada 95.
There's no reason to throw out all of your current
Ada 83-based design which, even if your project is
only medium-sized, represents a large invest by your
company.  The prospect of redesigning a current system
(at any time, not just when a new technology like Ada 95
is available) is fun for engineers but a nightmare for
project managers.  The engineers see redesign as a great
opportunity to start with a blank slate and "do it right
this time", as well as an opportunity to use fun new
features of the underlying technology (be it the OS or
the implementation language).  Project managers are
generally concerned with the schedule and the budget;
a vigorous redesign is a good way to blow both.

So to start off on the right foot, you must not talk
of using Ada 95 to make major changes to the old design.
This might be your eventual goal.  It may or may not
ever happen.  But it will never happen if you don't get
past the first step, which is to get Ada 95's foot in
the door.  You can't do that if people are convinced that
this will cause a massive re-write of everything done so
far.

Have a list of design changes you would like to see
implemented, describe how these will be beneficial to
the project, and draw up a schedule for prototyping
these changes to determine the cost/benefits of each,
and another schedule which shows how these changes can
ever-so-gradually be introduced into the system.

New projects in Ada 95 do not need so tentative
an approach.  Go ahead, stretch those compilers!
I've noticed that the current crop of Ada 95
compilers is much better than last season's,
especially in those areas that did not see much
use in the early days (like tagged types and
the new generics features), but which now are
starting to be used in new projects.

Stanley Allen
mailto:[log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager