Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #18747
| From | Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ |
| Date | 2014-10-17 22:59 +0300 |
| Organization | Tidorum Ltd |
| Message-ID | <cadaosFoc5rU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <7xmw8vca32.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <5440e4b1$0$2909$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <cad0urFlof1U1@mid.individual.net> <20141017101821.6c7be540@rg.highlandtechnology.com> <m4p24a11bdq7a30kvfqhaprqvcoqstl208@4ax.com> |
On 14-10-17 21:53 , upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 10:18:21 -0700, Rob Gaddi
> <rgaddi@technologyhighland.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 20:12:03 +0300
>> Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14-10-17 12:43 , Arlet Ottens wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/2014 11:35 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
>>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>>>>> I disagree, in the embedded world. In PC programming, I agree - very
>>>>>> often you are better with a language like Python than with C or C++.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to think that even in MCU programming there have to be better
>>>>> alternatives to C or C++. Ada seems like a possibility except that the
>>>>> toolchains are either obscure or very expensive.
>>>
>>> Ada toolchains remain a problem, but things are changing. AdaCore now
>>> provides a free (both free-beer and free-speech) ARM Cortex version of
>>> the GNU Ada compiler, GNAT. There is also a version for the AVR
>>> 8-bitters. The TI MSP430 is also being worked on. No Ada compiler yet
>>> (as far as I know) for the 8051 series.
>>>
>>>> I don't know. I think Ada only helps protect against some superficial
>>>> mistakes. It does nothing to prevent someone from using a poor overall
>>>> design or conceptual errors that may be much harder to catch.
>>>
>>> I disagree. The set of problem-modelling tools in Ada is much stronger
>>> and more expressive than in C. It is much easier to think and design in
>>> problem-domain terms. A real module / package system, integer types
>>> defined by what you need and not by the implementation, private and
>>> abstract types, classes and inheritance, ...
>>>
>>> Ada is of course more comparable to C++ than to C, but Ada has none of
>>> the inherited "C baggage" that distorts and weakens C++.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Niklas Holsti
>>> Tidorum Ltd
>>> niklas holsti tidorum fi
>>> . @ .
>>
>> The last time I even thought about using Ada, I got scared off by the
>> size of the runtime you needed to go with it (tens of KB). Anyone know
>> if that's still the case?
You can choose to include the parts of the run-time libraries that you
want to use. The GNAT compiler has a "zero foot-print" mode where the
run-time is empty; of course this means that the application must manage
without some Ada features (tasking, mainly). GNAT provides a range of
run-times of various sizes and capabilities, and you can configure your
own selection too.
Same thing applies to C/C++: if you want to use threads/tasks, you must
include a kernel of some sort. Is "tens of KB" a lot these days?
That said, the main problem with Ada on microcontrollers today is still
the limited range of compilers/targets. I haven't tried it, but the
common opinion is that porting the gcc-based GNAT, and its run-time
system, to new targets is not an easy task, even if gcc already supports
the new target. Some people have succeeded to target ARM Cortex, Atmel
AVR, and TI MSP430. The run-time systems in these "amateur" ports are
still rudimentary, without tasking support, I believe.
The AdaCore GPL GNAT for ARM Cortex has a very usable tasking subset
(the "Ravenscar" profile).
> How much non-military application has actually been written in any
> dialect of ADA ?
(Pro forma nit-pick: the name of the language is spelled Ada, after Ada
Lovelace, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace.)
Typical uses are airplane control systems (civilian and military), air
traffic control systems (mainly civilian), railroad control systems,
space applications (civilian and military). I'm told that
banking/finance applications exist. More listed at www.adaic.org.
Some other resources: Reference manuals at
http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/. Free compilers at
http://libre.adacore.com/, also available in many Linux distributions
(best support in Debian). Also available in the MinGW gcc environment
for Windows, http://www.mingw.org/.
--
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
. @ .
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2014-10-17 00:00 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-17 07:38 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-17 09:27 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-17 09:29 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-17 11:19 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-17 02:35 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Arlet Ottens <usenet+5@c-scape.nl> - 2014-10-17 11:43 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-17 12:12 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Arlet Ottens <usenet+5@c-scape.nl> - 2014-10-17 13:25 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-17 12:40 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2014-10-17 20:12 +0300
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@technologyhighland.invalid> - 2014-10-17 10:18 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ upsidedown@downunder.com - 2014-10-17 21:53 +0300
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2014-10-17 22:59 +0300
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-17 13:23 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Jacob Sparre Andersen <jacob@jacob-sparre.dk> - 2014-10-18 17:46 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-18 11:45 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2014-10-19 01:51 +0300
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Jacob Sparre Andersen <jacob@jacob-sparre.dk> - 2014-10-19 12:43 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Jacob Sparre Andersen <jacob@jacob-sparre.dk> - 2014-10-18 17:44 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-17 12:44 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-17 12:13 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2014-10-17 20:15 +0300
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Arlet Ottens <usenet+5@c-scape.nl> - 2014-10-17 19:18 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-17 23:03 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-17 14:11 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-18 20:14 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-18 22:15 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-10-18 23:07 +0000
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-19 00:36 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2014-10-19 10:55 +0300
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-19 09:33 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2014-10-20 15:04 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-19 13:32 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-17 23:44 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-18 20:10 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2014-10-18 23:38 +0300
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-18 22:21 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2014-10-19 10:43 +0300
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2014-10-19 09:38 +0000
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-19 14:07 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-19 19:47 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2014-10-20 06:55 +0300
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-19 21:02 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ britt.snodgrass@gmail.com - 2014-10-20 04:02 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2014-10-20 18:51 +0300
C and Ada, was: Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2014-10-21 00:30 +0000
Re: C and Ada, was: Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-10-20 20:49 -0500
Re: C and Ada, was: Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Jacob Sparre Andersen <jacob@jacob-sparre.dk> - 2014-10-21 09:11 +0200
Re: C and Ada, was: Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-10-21 08:34 -0500
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2014-10-19 21:23 +0300
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2014-10-20 03:39 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-17 12:07 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-17 12:06 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-17 14:12 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-17 13:16 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Stef <stef33d@yahooI-N-V-A-L-I-D.com.invalid> - 2014-10-17 14:13 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Arlet Ottens <usenet+5@c-scape.nl> - 2014-10-17 14:35 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-17 13:59 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-17 17:06 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ upsidedown@downunder.com - 2014-10-17 19:41 +0300
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2014-10-18 10:14 +1100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-18 00:36 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2014-10-20 09:45 +1100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2014-10-18 08:52 +0300
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-10-18 09:41 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2014-10-20 09:46 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-20 16:26 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2014-10-20 16:42 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-20 17:24 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> - 2014-10-21 19:09 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2014-10-24 16:38 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2014-10-21 15:12 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-21 16:39 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2014-10-22 01:43 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2014-10-22 20:00 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-22 18:49 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2014-10-21 15:15 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2014-10-22 04:45 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-22 09:30 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2014-10-23 12:25 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-23 15:17 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-10-23 22:59 +0000
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-23 16:02 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2014-10-27 08:30 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-27 09:00 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2014-10-27 09:24 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-27 09:30 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-10-28 00:52 +0000
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-28 08:45 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-10-28 02:00 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2014-10-30 11:56 -0400
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ upsidedown@downunder.com - 2014-10-28 19:59 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-28 23:46 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ upsidedown@downunder.com - 2014-10-29 07:27 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-29 10:11 +0100
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-29 10:21 -0500
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-10-29 20:15 +0000
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-30 11:33 -0500
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-10-30 19:07 +0000
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-30 16:19 -0500
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2014-10-31 07:32 +0000
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-10-31 08:45 +0000
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2014-10-31 18:15 +0800
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-10-31 22:03 +0000
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-31 09:53 -0500
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-10-31 22:17 +0000
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-10-31 17:50 -0500
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2014-10-28 04:37 +0000
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-21 19:12 +0200
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2014-10-21 15:06 -0700
Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-22 19:06 +0200
csiph-web