TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: Simon Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:24:35 GMT
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> (message from Wesley Groleau on Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:21:39 -0500)
Reply-To: Simon Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (13 lines)
> From: Wesley Groleau <[log in to unmask]>
[..]
> necessary to use assembly language with Ada in time-critical areas.
>
>    Sometimes true, but in general, see
>    http://www.seas.gwu.edu/seas/eecs/Research/ada/sigada-website/lawlis.html

I would have thought that if you needed assembler at all you would
need it whatever the HOL (temporarily admitting C to that class :)

What I can't understand is people who actually _like_ programming with
pthreads when they could perfectly well use tasks or protected types  ..

ATOM RSS1 RSS2