F/A-22 vs. FB-22

"John Weiss" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

In the ralm of machine perception the source language doesn't matter WRT
timing as much as the processor.

Hmmm... Try writing an app for the same processor in Assembler, C, and
Java;
and maintaining the Assembler timing and efficiency with the others...

"In the r[e]alm of machine perception," a different processor often
describes a
different machine; a new programming language usually does not.

Is any of the gibberish you wrote supposed to mean something?

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
John Weiss wrote:
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...
In the ralm of machine perception the source language doesn't matter WRT
timing as much as the processor.

Hmmm... Try writing an app for the same processor in Assembler, C, and
Java;
and maintaining the Assembler timing and efficiency with the others...

The problem is "maintaining the Assembler timing and efficiency"
throughout a large Assembler program.

Humans as compilers are so slow and buggy that they're only used for a
tiny fraction of the program where they're really needed.

Go count the lines of Assembly in the Linux kernel and note how they're
used only to get the C program up and running and deal with hardware
details that cannot be expressed in C.

That they had to program 10 percent of the F/A-22 in Assembler gives me
pause as to how portable the rest of it might be.

None of that will matter if you use a different processor. In the case of
the F-22, it was discovered that the variation in timing between different
runs of the same part number Motorola processors have signifigant
differences in instruction cycle time. These differences in time were
addressed with "patches", but then the program lost tracability for the
processors and had to surplus the entire lot. Which brought the program
back to writing a big check to Intel so that they would guarantee i960
supplies.

Clark wrote:
What is the basis of your claim the 10% of the F/A-22 software is is
assembler?

I concede that all of the sites I have seen the 90% Ada claim on are not
offical.

-HJC

"Clark" stillnospam@me wrote in message
...
Henry J Cobb wrote in :

Clark wrote:
What is the basis of your claim the 10% of the F/A-22 software is is
assembler?

I concede that all of the sites I have seen the 90% Ada claim on are not
offical.

Even if it is 90% ADA, that does not imply that 10% is assembler. It
wouldn't
be unusual at all to see C or C++ utilized along with ADA.

Especially when the origin of the code is considered. (ie BAE systems)