TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


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 Programming Language Advocacy (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: Simon Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:10:46 +0100
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> (message from Dirk Craeynest on Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:30:25 +0200)
Reply-To: Simon Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (21 lines)
> FYI, there's a thread entitled "RTeal-time Ada Programming Rules ?"
> in the comp.realtime newsgroup.
> Some of you more eloquent then I am, might want to respond to the
> misinformation spread there about the "wretched performance" of
> "lots of [] Ada idioms" in general and the unsuitability of Ada
> tasking in particular...

At least the person saying this uses Ada!

I didn't think what he was saying was that bad, given that my
experience with really hard real time is a bit limited (we were amused
when one of our radar signal processing colleagues, told about our 1
ms deadlines, said "Oh, not too difficult then"!)

It's certainly true that the (apparent) ease of task programming in
Ada can lead new users to think that they can use tasks without
considering the resource usage. If you had 1000 radar tracks, it might
be unwise to assign a task to each one; at the very least, you'd want
to measure the performance in the prototype phase.