Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++

From	Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@technologyhighland.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.arch.embedded
Subject	Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++
Date	2014-10-17 10:18 -0700
Organization	Highland Technology, Inc.
Message-ID	<20141017101821.6c7be540@rg.highlandtechnology.com> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <or40w.864993$xb.539259@fx08.am4> <m1qmvf$1d1$1@dont-email.me> <7xmw8vca32.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <5440e4b1$0$2909$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <cad0urFlof1U1@mid.individual.net>

Show all headers | View raw

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?

-- 
Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology -- www.highlandtechnology.com
Email address domain is currently out of order.  See above to fix.

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