TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"F. Britt Snodgrass" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Tue, 16 May 2000 10:27:13 -0500
text/plain (27 lines)
On Tue, 16 May 2000 Richard Riehle wrote:

>If we are going to promote Ada, let's focus on those platforms best
>suited to it.  In a meeting yesterday, I was advised that a group
>working on Lynx OS has decided that Ada is no longer meeting their
>needs because they have upgraded to Lynx 3.0 and they cannot find
>an Ada compiler for it.  They have been using Ada on Lynx 2.5. If
>we do not support the platforms we start out supporting, those who
>choose Ada will continue to be frustrated when they decide to upgrade
>to the next level of an operating system.

I agree. I am currently part of a team evaluating both processors and
languages for next generation products.  IMO, the main weakness of Ada
is the lack of 16/32/64-bit target processor support relative to C.  In
particular, there are no Ada compilers for the low-power 32-bit Intel
StrongARM, Motorola MCORE,and Hitachi SH processors that are currently
used in battery operated devices such as cell phones, handheld
computers, and GPS receivers.  The real-time software in a GPS receiver
is quite complex so Ada is an ideal programming language.  But when the
product has to run for several hours on 2 AA batteries, processor power
consumption is more important than the language used for the source

Ada vendors need to support market leading lower-power 32-bit CPUs.

F. Britt Snodgrass ([log in to unmask])