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

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.arch.embedded
Subject	Re: validity of ... reasons for preferring C over C++
Date	2014-10-17 23:03 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<m1s06p$5k2$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <or40w.864993$xb.539259@fx08.am4> <m1qmvf$1d1$1@dont-email.me> <7xmw8vca32.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <m1qruv$39e$1@dont-email.me> <cad15aFlqc0U1@mid.individual.net>

Show all headers | View raw

On 17/10/14 19:15, Niklas Holsti wrote:
> On 14-10-17 13:44 , David Brown wrote:
>> On 17/10/14 11:35, 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.  There have been some C
>>> dialects like Cyclone that were clever but never got traction.  And I
>>> guess there are some specialty EDSL's like Atom that aren't so good for
>>> general purpose development.  Forth is interesting but it's from a
>>> different world, and still unsafe though with fewer traps than C.
>>>
>>
>> In theory, one could do much better than C or C++ - but not in practice.
>>   For some systems, Ada is a possible choice.  But while Ada is "safer"
>> than C in some ways, it has its own problems
>
> Care to list a few of those? Just to have a good debate? Been a while...

My experience with Ada is rather limited, so you might end up teaching 
me rather than getting a good debate.  But of course others will no 
doubt join in.

An obvious (but highly subjective) irritation with Ada is the verbosity 
of the language - lots of things need repeated, and many of the 
constructs are more wordy than necessary.  Using words rather than 
symbols is not necessarily a bad thing, within limits - C++ arguably 
relies too much on symbols, as anyone trying to read a lambda function 
will know.  But sometimes Ada reads as though you are chatting to the 
computer rather than programming.

Ada programming encourages the use of user-defined types for all sorts 
of things.  You are not supposed to hold a "day" in an "int" or 
"uint8_t", you are supposed to define "type Day_type is range 1 .. 31;". 
  Sometimes this sort of thing can make code clearer, but it can also 
make it harder to see what is really going on in the program.  When you 
see a type like "uint8_t" or "int", you know exactly what it means - 
when the type is "Day_type", you have to think about it much more, and 
perhaps look up the definition.  And because type conversions have to be 
explicit in Ada, you need to add lots of them when using these types.  C 
and C++ do more of this automatically, giving clearer code.

The run-time overhead in Ada can be an issue - the larger run-time 
library, the run-time checks, exceptions (I don't like them in C++ either).

Of course, the biggest disadvantages of Ada compared to C or C++ are not 
because of the language itself, but because of the relative popularities 
- there are fewer Ada tools, fewer Ada developers, fewer libraries, 
RTOS's, network stacks, etc., less example code, and so on.

And there are things that Ada has that I would love to see in C and/or 
C++, such as the ' symbol that lets you write Day_type'Last.

>
>> - and the limited choice of tools, and limited number of users, mean
>> that it is only appropriate in certain niches.
>
> Circular argument. If more people would use it, there would be more
> users, more choice of tools, etc. On USENET, comp.lang.ada is a very
> active group which gives lots of help to new users. And recently there
> seems to be an influx of new users in that group.
>

Of course it is a circular argument.  Lots of things we use or do all 
the time are used primarily because they are popular, and they are 
popular primarily because people use them - despite there being 
technically superior alternatives.  We program 8051 microcontrollers, 
type with QWERTY keyboards, use Windows systems, eat at McDonalds, and 
listen to Britny Spears - even though they are all hopelessly bad 
compared to alternatives, they exist because they are popular.

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