Chris Hills wrote:

>>>> Should a sane embedded engineer use C++?
>>> Is this a philosophical, social, engineering or commercial question?
>> It is not a question. The sane embedded engineer must use C++.
> 
> Please expand... this is not a troll but I am interested in  your 
> reasoning though I am assuming you are not suggesting C++ for PIC's and 
> 8051's etc


1. The performance of the today's low end 8-bitter is comparable to that 
of the desktop computer about 15 years ago. The speed and size are 
rarely the issue; geting the project done on time and for good is more 
important.

2. The marketing requirements are growing at every year. Although the 
substantial part of, say, PID regulator is not too different from what 
it was 50 years before, now they want a lot of bells and whistles 
around. The development of interfaces and other non essential things 
takes the majority of the effort.

3. Therefore any project consists of a conceptual part, which should be 
done right, and a big pile of rather trivial legwork. The backbone of 
the application has to be set by a master, whereas the routine can be 
left to the apprentices. Masters are rare and expensive; apprentices are 
likely to screw up. The C++ helps avoiding many dumb mistakes of the 
apprentice level.

4. Aside from the development of features, there is another big part: 
handling of errors and miscellaneous special cases.  The C++ philosophy 
helps here too (This is not only about the exceptions).

5. So far C++ seems to be the best compromise between the convenience 
and the efficiency. The particularly good property of C++ is that if you 
don't like a feature, you don't have to use it.

Vladimir Vassilevsky

DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant

http://www.abvolt.com

In article <u...@eisner.encompasserve.org>, Simon Clubley 
<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes
>In article <KFPPh.4279$Y...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, Vladimir 
>Vassilevsky <a...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> I don't mind using Ada, but where are the compilers? This looks like
>> another perfectly designed still born thing.
>>
>
>Ada is available as part of GCC.
>
>You can either use a FSF distribution of GCC, which has no restrictions
>on what you can use the Ada compiler for, or you can use a packaged
>distribution from ACT, which is restricted to GPL only projects.
>
>See https://libre.adacore.com/ for the packaged version. Note that I've no
>experience with this distribution because I prefer to use the FSF
>distributions so that I'm not restricted in what I can use the compiler for.
>
>Note also that the RTEMS RTOS has support for using Ada, but the support
>level appears to vary by architecture.


And this is suitable for safety critical projects?

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ c...@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article <ythG3lQRr+D...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills <c...@phaedsys.org> writes:
> 
> And this is suitable for safety critical projects?
> 

I'm not going to make any judgement on that because I don't have any safety
critical experience. You would have to, for example, talk to ACT about what
they recommend in that situation.

I was just addressing Vladimir's comments that no Ada compilers appeared
to exist.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980's technology to a 21st century world

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 16:17:51 +0100, Chris Hills <c...@phaedsys.org>
wrote:

><snip>
>Those in industry, or in fact anywhere outside a sheltered environment 
>will know there is no such thing as a free lunch.
><snip>

To a meaningful degree, there is.  To name just one -- the atmosphere
-- where various gases are dumped without taking into fair account
their attendant costs.  Basically any uncontrolled commons resource
represents a free lunch in the sense that folks today can nearly
completely discount the much greater costs some substantial time
later.  That looks 'free lunch' to me, if not entirely moral.

Jon

Colin Paul Gloster wrote:

> 
> The point being ?."
> 
> The Ada standard with unsuitable aspects prohibited (such as by using
> pragma Profile (RAVENSCAR);


How can you make any comparison if you have no knowledge of the 
standard. To put this into perspective, it costs only approx 10.00 uk 
pounds, less that you would pay for a round of beers. Isn't such an 
effort worth something in terms of professional development ?.

In any case, your logic is flawed. It doesn't follow that because one 
object in a class of objects is available at no cost, all the rest of 
the objects in that class should be free, which in effect is what you 
are arguing.

> I am paid entirely by taxes as a researcher, so of course all of my
> current work should be available for no extra charge and subject to peer review
> and criticism. My tutors do not agree. Other work I had done was for a
> private former employer which has the right to choose whether or not that work
> is open source and whether or not that work is free to others. One
> thing such a former employer can not do is choose for that work to be
> free to the former employer because I had already been paid.
 >

If you are a researcher, perhaps you would care to comment further on 
the outrageous charges for online research reports these days, both 
current and historical. Much of the work originally funded by the 
taxpayer, but being openly sold at prices that make them inaccessable to 
all but well heeled individuals or large organisations. $25 to $50 per 
report, or several thousand dollars per annum is not unusual, for stuff 
that has already been paid for. The results of publicly finded research 
should be available at cost to anyone who wishes to access it,  but 
that's far from the case now. The Nasa tech reports server is a shining 
exception, however and there are other organisations with altruistic 
rather than a greedy, grasping attitude.

> 
> 
> As you like paying for things so much, may I charge you for reading
> this post?
 >

No, because one would assume that you have already accepted the culture 
of usenet, where anything posted is expected to be read by a worldwide 
audience.

> 
> 
> "The C++ version should be quite interesting..."
> 
> Should a sane embedded engineer use C++?

Open to debate I guess. C++ may have a role for consumer electronics 
applications, where recovery is usually power off and reboot, but is it 
really ready or appropriate for mission critical work ?...

Chris

ChrisQuayle wrote:


> Open to debate I guess. C++ may have a role for consumer electronics 
> applications, where recovery is usually power off and reboot, but is it 
> really ready or appropriate for mission critical work ?...

A fear of savages before a steam locomotive?

VLV

In article <oLSPh.494$r...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, ChrisQuayle 
<n...@devnul.co.uk> writes
>>   "The C++ version should be quite interesting..."
>>  Should a sane embedded engineer use C++?
>
>Open to debate I guess. C++ may have a role for consumer electronics 
>applications, where recovery is usually power off and reboot, but is it 
>really ready or appropriate for mission critical work ?...

The US Joint Strike Fighter uses C++ not Ada

Incidentally JSF++ is based on MISRA-C:1998
-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ c...@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article <a...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris Hills says...
> In article <M...@free.teranews.com>, Robert Adsett 
> <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> writes
> >In article <1...@corp.supernews.com>, msg says...
> >I thought I'd try PC-Lint on some of these and see what popped out.
> 
> >
> >+++ No messages for any of the above.  I know PC-Lint checks for a
> >subset of the MISRA messages but I'm guessing only for the previous
> >version.
> 
> There are MISRA-C files for both versions on their web site.

Thought I'd check them out to see if they enabled anything I hadn't 
already.  It looks like there have been a few changes introduced that 
slipped by me.  There is only a significant effect on the first test 
cases so I'll just repost those

void test(const char *mess)
{
extern unsigned char variable1;
extern unsigned int variable2;
extern int  space;
extern size_t  space2;

variable1 = variable1 + 1;
/*
test2.c  44  Note 960: Violates MISRA 2004
    Required Rule 10.1, Prohibited Implicit Conversion: Signed versus 
Unsigned
*/

variable1 = (unsigned char)(variable1 + 1);
/*
test2.c  46  Note 960: Violates MISRA 2004
    Required Rule 10.1, Prohibited Implicit Conversion: Signed versus 
Unsigned
*/

variable2 = (unsigned char)(variable2 + 1);
/*
test2.c  48  Note 960: Violates MISRA 2004
    Required Rule 10.1, Prohibited Implicit Conversion: Signed versus 
Unsigned

test2.c  48  Note 960: Violates MISRA 2004
    Required Rule 10.1, Prohibited Implicit Conversion: Converting 
complex
    expression
*/

variable1++;

variable2++;

Note: this is after turning off the check for rule 6.3 which essentially 
prohibits dirrct use of C's native types.  It produces way too much 
noise in this example.  


Robert

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In news:+P...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk timestamped Sun, 1 Apr
2007 14:04:23 +0100, Chris Hills <c...@phaedsys.org> posted:
"In article <eun74d$vpv$1...@newsserver.cilea.it>, Colin Paul Gloster
<C...@ACM.org> writes
>" Would you expect to get a usefull book for nothing
>that someone has spent considerable time and effort to produce,"
>
>Yes: the Ada 2005 standard is available for gratis. I had already
> stated that and you quoted that.

Ada was NOT FREE It cost the US government several million pounds. The
only reason it was "Free" is because the US government wanted everyone
to use this language on US military projects."


The Ada standard did not cost me several million dollars. I never said
that the Ada standard did not "cost the US government several million"
dollars. It "is available for gratis" to someone who is not the US
government, as I had said.


"It costs a lot of money to make a standard like MISRA-C are you going to
fund it?"

No. I have no need of MISRA-C.




"[..]
>
>I am paid entirely by taxes as a researcher,

That explains a hell of a lot :-) "

:)




"> so of course all of my
>current work should be available for no extra charge and subject to peer revie
w
>and criticism. My tutors do not agree.

Available to who for free?"


Available to tax payers in an imaginary universe in which academia is
accountable to tax payers and in which refereed journals actually
conducted science by checking claims in submissions instead of taking
them on faith.



">So perhaps I have misjudged MISRA standards from rumors.

SO you are arguing about something you have not yet seen?

[..]"

Yes. If you want, I can provide you with legal copies of the Ada standard
and the two most recent Ada ex-standards at no expense to you if you
provide me with a legal copy of the MISRA C standard and a legal copy
of the MISRA C ex-standard, both at no cost to me.

In news:X...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk timestamped Sun, 1 Apr
2007 16:17:51 +0100, Chris Hills <c...@phaedsys.org> posted:
"In article <KFPPh.4279$Y...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, Vladimir
Vassilevsky <a...@hotmail.com> writes
[..]
>
>It is not a question. The sane embedded engineer must use C++.

Please expand... this is not a troll but I am interested in  your
reasoning though I am assuming you are not suggesting C++ for PIC's and
8051's etc"


You have been aware that vendors claim to support some of C++ for
PIC's and 8051's.