Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #18865
| From | Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++ |
| Date | 2014-10-21 19:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m26b6g.3d4.1@stefan.msgid.phost.de> (permalink) |
| References | <pan.2014.10.16.23.00.30.486000@nowhere.invalid> <471630bc-b11d-4c97-963e-83b4048e5dcb@googlegroups.com> |
Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 19:21:11 +0200, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>>PS I am (in the context of this question) NOT interested in
>>- whether a reason is valid (please start a different thread for
>>discussing this, I'll surely join in).
>
> !!! Availability of skilled C++ developers !!!
+1
What helps me most is that I am able to think like a compiler, because I
wrote half of one during university. Few people can do that (and it
isn't a skill that embedded recruiters have on their list). So while
most people can get a program correct after a while, only few can make
it efficient.
> In the embedded space, think about how many folks
> with lots of C++ on their resume could answer:
>
> 1) Give some examples where C++ can help you manage
> low-level machine access easier than raw C.
Your mileage will vary, but I found it very convenient to group things
such as "SPI driver" in classes. Just the fact that I can then use
spi.send(data);
instead of
freescale_mx35_spi_send(&spi, data);
would be a good argument for me.
> 2) In a small embedded system with no dynamic memory
> (other than the stack):
>
> 2a) What language features will you not be able to use?
This is a trick question, because if I don't have dynamic memory, I
could simply write my own allocator.
However, I will not be able to use most off-the-shelf components. If I
have a whopping 4 kilobytes of heap, I don't want a std::vector or
std::string that dutifully pre-allocates me 128 elements just to make
future appends faster.
> 2b) What special considerations will you expect when
> creating a class?
Depends on the compiler, but I would try to convince the compiler NOT to
generate exception-handling code. This could mean not using destructors,
and maybe even constructors. It still keeps language features like
templates and classes-for-encapsulation, but the experience will be very
different than for a "big" app.
> 3) Give an example where using C++ a template can generate
> more efficient code than typical C coding.
C++ templates can do compile-time polymorphy, that is, you use inline
code where you would use function pointers in C.
For a previous project, I was writing several drivers; some already
existed in a prototype version in C. Drivers needed some sort of
request/result queues. The C versions implemented these queues anew,
every damn time, probably with a lot of cut & paste involved. First
thing I did was to add a simple Queue template class and use it
everywhere. My final source code was around half the size and much more
maintainable than the C version; the object code was smaller by a few
percent, too.
Stefan
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