TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
Date:
Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:11:37 -0800
Reply-To:
Mark Lundquist <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Mark Lundquist <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version:
1.0
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
> From: [log in to unmask]
>
> The reason for asking is that I just learned that Rational Rose Real-Time
> wasn't going to support Ada any longer.
>

Rose Real-Time has never supported Ada!

And I'm not sure that it should, either (see below...)

Anyway, Rose/Ada (the Ada add-in for Rose) is not going anywhere.  It's
being actively maintained.  If someone gave you the impression that Rational
was discontinuing Rose/Ada, that's misinformation!

Rose/RT supports a design methodology that is intended for C++.  It's far
from obvious that this methodology could be transferrable to Ada.  Certain
parts of it are (the state-machine bits), but it's not clear to me that the
central abstractions of the Objectime approach (capsules and ports) apply to
a language with built-in tasking semantics, type-safe generics etc., at
least not in the same forms as for C++.  Ada was designed for real-time
embedded systems, so there is not the same need to layer more abstractions
over it to support these things.  I think parts of the Objectime approach
can be viewed as an attempt to "make C++ safe for real-time embedded".

Mark Lundquist
Rational Software

ATOM RSS1 RSS2