Message-Id: <199803090857.KAA33614@ieva06.lanet.lv>
From: "Andris Pavenis" <pavenis AT laima DOT acad DOT latnet DOT lv>
To: mpereze AT lasalle DOT edu DOT co, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 10:54:25 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: was Re: help!
In-reply-to: <199803071658.IAA27544@adit.ap.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

> Date:          Sat, 7 Mar 1998 08:58:35 -0800 (PST)
> To:            ""Miguel Angel Pérez Estrada.""  <mpereze AT lasalle DOT edu DOT co>,
>                djgpp AT delorie DOT com
> From:          Nate Eldredge <eldredge AT ap DOT net>
> Subject:       Re: help!

> At 02:09  3/7/1998 +0000, Miguel Angel Pérez Estrada. wrote:
> >Probably this is  a not indicate medium to ask what i have to ask..
> >sorry..
> >its this.:
> >i want to make a computer controlled system.. with real time monitoring
> >of events.. to do that i have to make a choice of some languaje.. i have
> >read that Ada has powerful capabilities for real time working.. It is
> >better using it in turn of C++, Fortran or Pascal?.. It is better using
> >Windows in turn of MSDOS?
> 
> This is all sort of random guesswork and hearsay, but from what I have
> heard, Ada does not in general have a good reputation. It's supposed to be
> an extremely overcomplicated language whose use should be avoided when
> possible. But I have never used Ada, so this is all secondhand.
> 
> DOS is probably preferable to Windows for a real-time application

Of course DOS is better as Windows for real time application. My 
experience shows that I can use DJGPP even if fast response  to interrupt
requests is required (small interrupt lantencies). 

> , since the
> concepts "real-time" and "multitasking" do not mix.
>

I think this is true about M$ Windows. However if one switches to Linux
there is an extension of Linux kernel for hard real time tasks where this 
is no more true. (See RT-Linux homepage for more info   
http://luz.cs.nmt.edu/~rtlinux/). 

Andris