Re: C# for Embedded ?...

From	Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.arch.embedded
Subject	Re: C# for Embedded ?...
Date	2016-11-05 07:21 +0100
Organization	Tidorum Ltd
Message-ID	<e85c3tFh7cdU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <88363acc-623b-4001-aee7-2af89a02becd@googlegroups.com> <nvi61j$vj5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <nvilhb$c5s$1@dont-email.me> <e84de0FaoglU1@mid.individual.net> <nvj149$m8i$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 16-11-04 23:12 , Don Y wrote:
> On 11/4/2016 2:38 PM, Niklas Holsti wrote:
>> On 16-11-04 19:54 , Don Y wrote:
>>> "Big system language" and "memory requirements" and "runtime"
>>> don't preclude a particular choice.  Consider Ada in your
>>> above assessment (hardly "small", economical, etc.).
>>
>> I challenge you to prove that facile slander of Ada. Ada-the-language is
>> certainly "larger" than C, but not larger than C++. Ada applications are
>> comparable in performance and memory needs to C applications. You can
>> prefer C
>> if you like, but not for such reasons.
>
> Do you consider Ada a "SMALL system language"?

Certainly it it suitable for small systems. Remember, Ada was originally 
designed in the early 1980s, for applications including embedded 
systems, many of which were then quite small by current standards.

The emphasis on embedded systems was so strong that some people believed 
that Ada wasn't good for anything else (IMO a false belief, of course).

> I'm not talking about
> the number of words/constructs in the language -- do you think it is
> designed with "small systems" in mind?  Would you choose it to
> implement a microwave oven controller (a half page of "BASIC")?

If an Ada compiler were available, certainly. And a half page of BASIC 
would be a very simple microwave oven indeed (depending of course on how 
much of the functions, safety interlocks etc. are implemented in HW).

> Ada is inherently targeted towards "bigger systems" (bigger
> meaning more complex).

It was designed to *support* such systems -- that was often called 
"programming in the large". But those features of Ada -- in particular 
the strong modularity (packages) and the encapsulation and information 
hiding features -- are entirely source-level, compile-time features and 
imply no overhead at run time.

One of the goals in the design of Ada was to avoid "distributed 
overhead" from language features that are not used in an application. If 
your application does not need multi-threading, fine, use a run-time 
system without tasking support. If you need only simple multi-threading, 
use a Ravenscar RTS, and so on.

> Why employ all those capabilities when
> your overall objective is a "small project"?

Small projects tend to grow, and to need maintenance, sometimes over a 
long time. Readability and maintainability are important and were also 
explicit design goals of the Ada language.

> Seriously, look at what it takes to implement YOUR microwave
> oven's controller

I've not seen the code in there, but I suspect that it is rather more 
than a half page of BASIC.

Still, this thread is (or was) not about micowave ovens, but about a 
safety-critical automotive application, which I suspect is larger than a 
microwave-oven controller.

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
       .      @       .

Thread

C# for Embedded ?... Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 13:12 +0000
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-11-04 15:16 +0200
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 13:39 +0000
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 07:52 -0700
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Luke A. Guest <laguest@archeia.com> - 2016-11-30 12:47 +0000
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2016-11-04 06:44 -0700
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 14:30 +0000
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 11:54 -0700
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 12:10 -0700
          Re: C# for Embedded ?... Mike Perkins <spam@spam.com> - 2016-11-06 14:55 +0000
            Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-06 12:46 -0700
              Re: C# for Embedded ?... Mike Perkins <spam@spam.com> - 2016-11-06 20:48 +0000
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-06 14:25 -0700
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... kalvin.news@gmail.com - 2016-11-04 12:11 -0700
          Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 15:17 -0700
            Re: C# for Embedded ?... Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2016-11-05 09:24 +1100
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2016-11-04 22:38 +0100
          Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 15:12 -0700
            Re: C# for Embedded ?... Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2016-11-05 09:21 +1100
            Re: C# for Embedded ?... Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2016-11-05 07:21 +0100
              Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 23:39 -0700
              Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-04 23:52 -0700
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-05 00:44 -0700
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... kalvin.news@gmail.com - 2016-11-05 04:03 -0700
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-05 04:41 -0700
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2016-11-06 10:03 +0100
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-06 14:32 -0800
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... upsidedown@downunder.com - 2016-11-05 15:39 +0200
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-05 11:12 -0700
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-05 11:35 -0700
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-05 11:46 -0700
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Luke A. Guest <laguest@archeia.com> - 2016-11-30 12:47 +0000
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 15:37 +0000
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2016-11-04 11:32 -0500
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 18:19 +0000
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-11-04 12:07 -0400
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-04 17:54 +0100
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2016-11-04 12:54 -0500
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 18:36 +0000
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-11-04 22:00 -0400
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-04 21:02 -0700
          Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 08:45 +0000
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 08:38 +0000
          Re: C# for Embedded ?... George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-11-06 04:50 -0500
            Re: C# for Embedded ?... Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2016-11-06 19:49 +0200
            Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 19:05 +0000
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2016-11-06 19:52 +0100
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-06 11:10 -0800
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 22:44 +0000
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 19:12 +0000
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-06 11:33 -0800
          Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 22:59 +0000
            Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-06 15:48 -0800
              Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 07:45 +0000
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-07 00:09 -0800
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 09:56 +0000
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2016-11-07 18:38 +0100
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 19:17 +0000
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-07 21:29 -0800
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 08:07 +0000
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-08 01:00 -0800
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 10:19 +0000
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... John Speth <johnspeth@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-04 10:03 -0700
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 12:04 -0700
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2016-11-05 09:13 +1100
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 11:16 -0800
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2016-11-08 21:39 +1100
          Re: C# for Embedded ?... Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 15:25 -0800
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... kalvin.news@gmail.com - 2016-11-04 11:22 -0700
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 18:50 +0000
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... kalvin.news@gmail.com - 2016-11-04 11:58 -0700
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... kalvin.news@gmail.com - 2016-11-04 12:17 -0700
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-04 12:51 -0700
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 23:23 +0000
          Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-04 17:35 -0700
            Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 09:04 +0000
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2016-11-04 22:55 +0100
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Luke A. Guest <laguest@archeia.com> - 2016-11-30 15:55 +0000
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 11:48 -0700
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... asdf <asdf@nospam.com> - 2016-11-05 12:40 +0000
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 15:48 +0000
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-05 11:41 -0700
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 20:20 +0000
          Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-05 19:14 -0700
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... upsidedown@downunder.com - 2016-11-05 20:15 +0200
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 20:25 +0000
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-05 17:15 -0700
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... Mike Perkins <spam@spam.com> - 2016-11-05 21:04 +0000
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 00:31 +0000
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2016-11-05 18:11 -0700
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... Luke A. Guest <laguest@archeia.com> - 2016-11-30 12:43 +0000

csiph-web