Re: C# for Embedded ?...

From	Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.arch.embedded
Subject	Re: C# for Embedded ?...
Date	2016-11-04 17:35 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<87mvheix1l.fsf@nightsong.com> (permalink)
References	<nvi1go$n89$1@gioia.aioe.org> <034a3f99-5915-4fa1-aa40-a658c3030e6f@googlegroups.com> <nM4Tz.1281849$zE.846901@fx46.am4> <87vaw3hvm9.fsf@nightsong.com> <NL8Tz.594421$oZ.330026@fx20.am4>

Show all headers | View raw

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>> C++ core guidelines
> Your suggested actions w.r.t. C/C++ are ameliorations, not cures. 

The guidelines basically say to use the current reasonably safe subset
of C++ rather than the leftover legacy stuff.  C++ itself can't get rid
of the old stuff because old programs would break, but new code can
avoid it straightforwardly.

> Even if (and it is a big if) they were a cure, how could you guarantee
> that /everybody/ (in whatever company) that produced any code that
> ends up in your product has fully followed the recommended practices.

1) Most (not all) of the guideline recommendations are statically
machine checkable and the guideline discusses that for each item.

2) Critical code even in Ada usually has multi-person code reviews that
should be able to spot departures from coding rules.

3) Stuff like excluding the use of certain runtime libraries can be
enforced by replacing those libraries with versions that signal errors.

4) The same "amelioration" issues apply to C (MISRA guidelines for
acceptable practices), Ada (Spark subset and profile), etc.

> Using C/C++ for safety critical system is "building a castle on sand".

C and C++ these days are completely different languages and Stroustrup
likes to say "I take most uses of the compound C/C++ as an indication of
ignorance." (http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#C-slash)

The C++ FQA sometimes is used to support the view that C++ is more
dangerous than C.  Having used C++ for a while now, my current
subjective impression is that if you follow the core guidelines and use
traditional coding/debugging processes, C++ is safer than C, especially
with modern (C++11 and later) dialects.  Ada is probably safer than
either.  I definitely choked a little when I heard that the Tesla car
and SpaceX rocket are both programmed in C++.

C has better static analysis tools like Frama-C that I'd like to try
using, which could be considered an advantage of C over C++.  I
currently haven't used them though.

> "what does the standard mean by X?" and "how do we simultaneously
> resolve the standard saying X and Y?". That doesn't warm the cockles
> of my heart.

Yep.  It's still like that.  You also can see that type of thing in
comp.lang.ada, so it's not C specific.

Thread

C# for Embedded ?... Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 13:12 +0000
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2016-11-04 15:16 +0200
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 13:39 +0000
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Jack <jack4747@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 07:52 -0700
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Luke A. Guest <laguest@archeia.com> - 2016-11-30 12:47 +0000
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2016-11-04 06:44 -0700
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 14:30 +0000
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 11:54 -0700
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 12:10 -0700
          Re: C# for Embedded ?... Mike Perkins <spam@spam.com> - 2016-11-06 14:55 +0000
            Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-06 12:46 -0700
              Re: C# for Embedded ?... Mike Perkins <spam@spam.com> - 2016-11-06 20:48 +0000
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-06 14:25 -0700
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... kalvin.news@gmail.com - 2016-11-04 12:11 -0700
          Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 15:17 -0700
            Re: C# for Embedded ?... Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2016-11-05 09:24 +1100
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2016-11-04 22:38 +0100
          Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 15:12 -0700
            Re: C# for Embedded ?... Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2016-11-05 09:21 +1100
            Re: C# for Embedded ?... Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2016-11-05 07:21 +0100
              Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 23:39 -0700
              Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-04 23:52 -0700
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-05 00:44 -0700
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... kalvin.news@gmail.com - 2016-11-05 04:03 -0700
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-05 04:41 -0700
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2016-11-06 10:03 +0100
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-06 14:32 -0800
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... upsidedown@downunder.com - 2016-11-05 15:39 +0200
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-05 11:12 -0700
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-05 11:35 -0700
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-05 11:46 -0700
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Luke A. Guest <laguest@archeia.com> - 2016-11-30 12:47 +0000
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 15:37 +0000
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2016-11-04 11:32 -0500
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 18:19 +0000
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-11-04 12:07 -0400
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-04 17:54 +0100
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2016-11-04 12:54 -0500
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 18:36 +0000
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-11-04 22:00 -0400
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-04 21:02 -0700
          Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 08:45 +0000
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 08:38 +0000
          Re: C# for Embedded ?... George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-11-06 04:50 -0500
            Re: C# for Embedded ?... Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2016-11-06 19:49 +0200
            Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 19:05 +0000
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2016-11-06 19:52 +0100
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-06 11:10 -0800
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 22:44 +0000
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 19:12 +0000
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-06 11:33 -0800
          Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 22:59 +0000
            Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-06 15:48 -0800
              Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 07:45 +0000
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-07 00:09 -0800
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 09:56 +0000
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2016-11-07 18:38 +0100
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 19:17 +0000
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-07 21:29 -0800
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 08:07 +0000
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-08 01:00 -0800
                Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 10:19 +0000
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... John Speth <johnspeth@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-04 10:03 -0700
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 12:04 -0700
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2016-11-05 09:13 +1100
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 11:16 -0800
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2016-11-08 21:39 +1100
          Re: C# for Embedded ?... Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 15:25 -0800
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... kalvin.news@gmail.com - 2016-11-04 11:22 -0700
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 18:50 +0000
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... kalvin.news@gmail.com - 2016-11-04 11:58 -0700
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... kalvin.news@gmail.com - 2016-11-04 12:17 -0700
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-04 12:51 -0700
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-04 23:23 +0000
          Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-04 17:35 -0700
            Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 09:04 +0000
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> - 2016-11-04 22:55 +0100
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Luke A. Guest <laguest@archeia.com> - 2016-11-30 15:55 +0000
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-04 11:48 -0700
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... asdf <asdf@nospam.com> - 2016-11-05 12:40 +0000
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 15:48 +0000
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-05 11:41 -0700
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 20:20 +0000
          Re: C# for Embedded ?... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-05 19:14 -0700
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... upsidedown@downunder.com - 2016-11-05 20:15 +0200
      Re: C# for Embedded ?... Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2016-11-05 20:25 +0000
        Re: C# for Embedded ?... Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2016-11-05 17:15 -0700
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... Mike Perkins <spam@spam.com> - 2016-11-05 21:04 +0000
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 00:31 +0000
    Re: C# for Embedded ?... Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2016-11-05 18:11 -0700
  Re: C# for Embedded ?... Luke A. Guest <laguest@archeia.com> - 2016-11-30 12:43 +0000

csiph-web