TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

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

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

Print Reply
"Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 16 May 2000 07:29:25 -0700
text/plain (46 lines)
From: Bob Leif
To: John McCabe, Richard Riehle et al.

1) The reason an engineer uses an 8051 class microprocessor is NOT its
instruction set; it is all of the other system parts that are included on
the chip and the existing software base. 2) There are now extended versions
of an 8051 which could probably execute code produced by an Ada compiler. 3)
Developing a code generator for these chips probably is not cost effective.
However, there are Ada compilers which produce C and J codes. This is a
reasonable way to work with these chips. In principle, J codes would be the
preferred solution. Ken Bowles' Old UCSD P codes were a good solution.
However, does anyone have any experience with real-time processing with an
Ada J code compiler? If it is negative, can the J code virtual machine be

-----Original Message-----
From: Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 2:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "Why Not Ada"

Richard Riehle wrote:

>For example, there is still a large readership
>devoted to I-8051 processors and others in that category.

>The reality is that Ada does not meet the needs of these
>programmers, largely because

>                    1) There are no Ada compilers,

I had a look at ESP's website last night and I searched for Ada. It came up
15 or so matches (most of which were Green Hills advertising), but I'm sure
saw a list that suggested there *was* an Ada compiler targetted to the 8051.
remember it because I was surprised to find it, but I'll check again tonight
case I'm wrong.