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
"Dale Jr, William" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Dale Jr, William
Wed, 22 Sep 1999 09:48:08 -0700
text/plain (88 lines)
I think the DOS port is important.

There are Free or at least Cheap DOS clones and I 'd like to  see a SBC
running DOS w/ Gnat Ada 95 as a very interesting real-time system.  DOS is
the next best thing to NO Operating system - which is were I think Ada
really shines!    If the DOS / Gnat Ada 95 supported Ada tasking it could be
awesome!  I don't think it does in previous versions.

So sitting in a shrink-wrapped box is:

*       x86 SBC with lots of memory, ports, ethernet,  USB what have you
*       Ada Gnat Ada 95 development tools that run on Windoze and/or Linux

Sounds like a nice prototyping/target  embedded development environment.

Unfortunately  I'm not real experienced at such ports.    If there are
others who find this an interesting idea let me know and we can kick it
around and see if there is a need.

Bill Dale
mailto:[log in to unmask]
mailto:[log in to unmask]

> ----------
> From:         Victor Scamerda
> Reply To:     [log in to unmask]
> Sent:         Wednesday, September 22, 1999 01:16
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: DOS site
> Hello
> >>> Michael Feldman <[log in to unmask]> 09/22 2:02 AM >>>
> >What I need to continue the site is some evidence that DOS-port
> >development will continue. I need to hear from the developers
> >who will do it.
> >
> >The ALT (Ada for Linux Team) has been extremely active, as anyone
> >can see who looks at their website ( On the DOS
> >side, 3.12 is nearly here and there is still (apparently) no usable
> >3.11 for DOS.
> I thought, the recent discussion on the DOS port did show that people on
> this list who care about it were agree to skip 3.11p version alltogether
> and jump to the 3.12. At least nobody argued about that. Am I wrong on
> this subject?
> >It would be nice if a DOS port emerged very shortly after the
> >public distributions were released. One of the ALT folks mentioned
> >(here or on chat) that ACT is cooperating with them - I assume this
> >means they get the final sources a bit early. In theory, I guess
> >this could also happen with DOS, but I rather doubt ACT will give
> >any help to a group that cannot seem to get the previous version out!
> >
> >Asking for early 3.12 sources would, I conjecture, be answered
> >with "where is the 3.11 port?"
> Don't forget that Linux is supported OS and DOS is not. Apparently Linux
> has much larger active developer base, than DOS and as the sutuation with
> tools infrastructure to build DOS and Linux applications also is not even,
> expecting the same results from both of them is a bit unfair. I remember
> when Jerry van Dijk asked if somebody on this list would host a CVS server
> for DOS development, nobody ever answered. Some of the former DOS
> developers are quickly moving towards Linux or Windows. So, these are
> clear signs that a DOS niche is narrowing and not asking too much would be
> a more realistic approach.
> Despite all these facts I will continue to support DOS in the future as
> long as possible, and when GNAT 3.12p arrive I hope to release the DOS
> port within a week or two after that.
> If anyone disagree with my views, please speak up now or it will look like
> nobody really cares about DOS port's future.
> Victor Shkamerda
> !
> !
> !
> !