D Yuniskis wrote:> *Personally*, I abhor "closed" and "for pay" standards -- if what > you have is so wonderful (and really little more than a piece of > electronic paper), why horde it?I assume that you don't charge for the work you do for customers. w..
Reason behind MISRA rule 111
Started by ●May 12, 2011
Reply by ●May 16, 20112011-05-16
Reply by ●May 16, 20112011-05-16
>-----< Arlet Ottens > >> #else >> #error Please add register definitions for this compiler #endif>-----< Vinzent Hoefler > > Which certainly violates MISRA rule 10 then: "Sections of code should > not be 'commented out'."No, absolutely not. That rule (now 2.4) specifically says that you should use #if or #ifdef ...#endif instead of commenting out using /* ... */. -- Fredrik Östman
Reply by ●May 16, 20112011-05-16
In message <KLCdnWXnsvyPY1LQnZ2dnUVZ8gGdnZ2d@lyse.net>, David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> writes>As far as I am concerned, a set of rules or definitions is not a >standard unless it is well-maintained by a reputable body, freely >available to view by anyone who wants it, freely implementable by >anyone who wants to, represents a real and practical document that is >widely followed, and adapts as required by its users, and modern >developments. Without that, it's just a set of private rules for a >particular club. That's fine in itself - private rules have lots of >uses. But it is not a standard.Then neither ISO C or C++ are a "Standard" -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by ●May 16, 20112011-05-16
In message <iqp21t$pag$1@speranza.aioe.org>, D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be@seen.com> writes> >Or, hope for the benevolence of "key players" in those industries >to underwrite all or part of their efforts. Things like Standards >are so tenuous that you have to be wary that The Industry might >just pick up and head off in a different direction regardless of >your concern/interests. > >The problem with "paid" organizations promoting/sponsoring things >like this is they tend to be self-perpetuating. They have a >vested interest in "their" Standard. So, the biological organisms >involved in it have a *huge* stake -- their SALARIES!Then there are no standards you can rely on. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by ●May 16, 20112011-05-16
On 16/05/2011 09:12, Chris H wrote:> In message<KLCdnWXnsvyPY1LQnZ2dnUVZ8gGdnZ2d@lyse.net>, David Brown > <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> writes >> As far as I am concerned, a set of rules or definitions is not a >> standard unless it is well-maintained by a reputable body, freely >> available to view by anyone who wants it, freely implementable by >> anyone who wants to, represents a real and practical document that is >> widely followed, and adapts as required by its users, and modern >> developments. Without that, it's just a set of private rules for a >> particular club. That's fine in itself - private rules have lots of >> uses. But it is not a standard. > > Then neither ISO C or C++ are a "Standard" >By the definition I used, then that's correct. They come close, however. But until you can freely download the pdfs, and use google to search online html versions, it's not a full standard to me. I think it is absurd that so many millions of developers around the world rely on these "standards", yet have no simple and easy way to view them. Online versions, especially with an interactive comment / wiki setup, would be a huge boon to developers.
Reply by ●May 16, 20112011-05-16
On 16/05/2011 08:28, Walter Banks wrote:> > > D Yuniskis wrote: > >> *Personally*, I abhor "closed" and "for pay" standards -- if what >> you have is so wonderful (and really little more than a piece of >> electronic paper), why horde it? > > I assume that you don't charge for the work you do for customers. >There are plenty of different business models for different types of work. I have no issues with standards developers making money out of their work (though I think state sponsorship of standards committees is a better model in many cases). I just think that a better way to make that money is by publishing the standards freely and spreading them as wide as possible, then selling services (trademark licensing, consultancy, certification, etc.). Maybe I'm naive here, and the sums wouldn't work out in the end. But Misra charge �10 for their pdf - it's absurd. Give it out free, and charge �100 for a Misra rule checker program.
Reply by ●May 16, 20112011-05-16
In message <qf2dnUc_JNuefk3QnZ2dnUVZ8i2dnZ2d@lyse.net>, David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes>On 16/05/2011 09:12, Chris H wrote: >> In message<KLCdnWXnsvyPY1LQnZ2dnUVZ8gGdnZ2d@lyse.net>, David Brown >> <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> writes >>> As far as I am concerned, a set of rules or definitions is not a >>> standard unless it is well-maintained by a reputable body, freely >>> available to view by anyone who wants it, freely implementable by >>> anyone who wants to, represents a real and practical document that is >>> widely followed, and adapts as required by its users, and modern >>> developments. Without that, it's just a set of private rules for a >>> particular club. That's fine in itself - private rules have lots of >>> uses. But it is not a standard. >> >> Then neither ISO C or C++ are a "Standard" >> > >By the definition I used, then that's correct. They come close, >however. But until you can freely download the pdfs, and use google to >search online html versions, it's not a full standard to me. I think >it is absurd that so many millions of developers around the world rely >on these "standards", yet have no simple and easy way to view them. >Online versions, especially with an interactive comment / wiki setup, >would be a huge boon to developers.They all have a VERY easy way to get the standards... they go and buy a copy of the PDF. Incidentally the MISRA standards come closer than the ISO C and C++ standards by your definitions. For the ISO (and certainly the BSI parts of it) there is no requirement to have any qualifications or experience in the field of the standard. BTW an on line wiki set up would be a complete disaster. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by ●May 16, 20112011-05-16
In message <W_KdnRiW69K1eE3QnZ2dnUVZ7oWdnZ2d@lyse.net>, David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes>On 16/05/2011 08:28, Walter Banks wrote: >> >> >> D Yuniskis wrote: >> >>> *Personally*, I abhor "closed" and "for pay" standards -- if what >>> you have is so wonderful (and really little more than a piece of >>> electronic paper), why horde it? >> >> I assume that you don't charge for the work you do for customers. >> > >There are plenty of different business models for different types of >work. I have no issues with standards developers making money out of >their work (though I think state sponsorship of standards committees is >a better model in many cases). I just think that a better way to make >that money is by publishing the standards freely and spreading them as >wide as possible, then selling services (trademark licensing, >consultancy, certification, etc.). > >Maybe I'm naive here, and the sums wouldn't work out in the end. But >Misra charge �10 for their pdf - it's absurd.No it is not. Why should MISRA not charge for the standard? DO you charge for your work?> Give it out free, and charge �100 for a Misra rule checker program.IF it is free why charge for a rule checker program? -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by ●May 16, 20112011-05-16
On 16/05/2011 10:52, Chris H wrote:> In message<qf2dnUc_JNuefk3QnZ2dnUVZ8i2dnZ2d@lyse.net>, David Brown > <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes >> On 16/05/2011 09:12, Chris H wrote: >>> In message<KLCdnWXnsvyPY1LQnZ2dnUVZ8gGdnZ2d@lyse.net>, David Brown >>> <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> writes >>>> As far as I am concerned, a set of rules or definitions is not a >>>> standard unless it is well-maintained by a reputable body, freely >>>> available to view by anyone who wants it, freely implementable by >>>> anyone who wants to, represents a real and practical document that is >>>> widely followed, and adapts as required by its users, and modern >>>> developments. Without that, it's just a set of private rules for a >>>> particular club. That's fine in itself - private rules have lots of >>>> uses. But it is not a standard. >>> >>> Then neither ISO C or C++ are a "Standard" >>> >> >> By the definition I used, then that's correct. They come close, >> however. But until you can freely download the pdfs, and use google to >> search online html versions, it's not a full standard to me. I think >> it is absurd that so many millions of developers around the world rely >> on these "standards", yet have no simple and easy way to view them. >> Online versions, especially with an interactive comment / wiki setup, >> would be a huge boon to developers. > > They all have a VERY easy way to get the standards... they go and buy a > copy of the PDF. >And will that pdf work on /my/ choice of pdf reader? Or is it one of these pseudo-pdf files that require a specific bug-ridden and security nightmare pdf reader with non-standard plugins and a specific OS? (I haven't got a copy of MISRA, so I don't know - but I know that applies to many other "standards" that are available on "pdf".)> Incidentally the MISRA standards come closer than the ISO C and C++ > standards by your definitions. For the ISO (and certainly the BSI parts > of it) there is no requirement to have any qualifications or experience > in the field of the standard. >MISRA are also closer in that �10 is a lot less than ISO charges for the C standards.> > BTW an on line wiki set up would be a complete disaster. >That depends on how it was done. I was thinking of the model used by PostgreSQL, such as here (look at the bottom of the page): <http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/interactive/sql-createtable.html> Registered community members can add comments to clarify the document, or to give hints or tips. The authors use these comments to improve later versions of the manual (and sometimes the software).
Reply by ●May 16, 20112011-05-16
In message <LNCdnZgace-cdk3QnZ2dnUVZ8t6dnZ2d@lyse.net>, David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes>On 16/05/2011 10:52, Chris H wrote: >> In message<qf2dnUc_JNuefk3QnZ2dnUVZ8i2dnZ2d@lyse.net>, David Brown >> <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> writes >>> On 16/05/2011 09:12, Chris H wrote: >>>> In message<KLCdnWXnsvyPY1LQnZ2dnUVZ8gGdnZ2d@lyse.net>, David Brown >>>> <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> writes >>>>> As far as I am concerned, a set of rules or definitions is not a >>>>> standard unless it is well-maintained by a reputable body, freely >>>>> available to view by anyone who wants it, freely implementable by >>>>> anyone who wants to, represents a real and practical document that is >>>>> widely followed, and adapts as required by its users, and modern >>>>> developments. Without that, it's just a set of private rules for a >>>>> particular club. That's fine in itself - private rules have lots of >>>>> uses. But it is not a standard. >>>> >>>> Then neither ISO C or C++ are a "Standard" >>>> >>> >>> By the definition I used, then that's correct. They come close, >>> however. But until you can freely download the pdfs, and use google to >>> search online html versions, it's not a full standard to me. I think >>> it is absurd that so many millions of developers around the world rely >>> on these "standards", yet have no simple and easy way to view them. >>> Online versions, especially with an interactive comment / wiki setup, >>> would be a huge boon to developers. >> >> They all have a VERY easy way to get the standards... they go and buy a >> copy of the PDF. >> > >And will that pdf work on /my/ choice of pdf reader?No idea. Probably Adobe and you can use any reader you with that is compliant.>> Incidentally the MISRA standards come closer than the ISO C and C++ >> standards by your definitions. For the ISO (and certainly the BSI parts >> of it) there is no requirement to have any qualifications or experience >> in the field of the standard. >MISRA are also closer in that �10 is a lot less than ISO charges for >the C standards.MISRA can't do it for free for obvious reasons.>> BTW an on line wiki set up would be a complete disaster.>Registered community members can add comments to clarify the document, >or to give hints or tips. The authors use these comments to improve >later versions of the manual (and sometimes the software).That is how MISRA works now. There is a forum for registered users to comment. They can not write to the document and "clarify" it as they will not have attended the meetings to know what was intended. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
