Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #25352
| From | John Speth <johnspeth@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch.embedded |
| Subject | Re: C# for Embedded ?... |
| Date | 2016-11-04 10:03 -0700 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <nvif1j$1k8b$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | <nvi1go$n89$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
> I've been invited to a meeting to discuss am automotive like engineering > project with a high level of safety critical requirements. > > They are using Simulink for some of the top level design work, but are > programming the whole lot in C#, with some of the code already written. > Not sure at this stage which rtos is being used, if at all. > > From what I've read, C# is a web / application / database programming > language and a quick look at the Wiki page suggests that the two > most recent versions are not approved by any international standards > organisation. > > C# raises alarm bells here for all kinds of reasons, but what do you > think ?... I agree with your negative concerns about the choice. But from a testing point of view, any language is just as good as any other *IF* it can be proved as such through thorough testing. I would hope there are well defined SW QA requirements. Using C# just opens up a lot of possible quality holes that might be avoided with some other programming language. Every hole needs to be tested. Every test costs money and time. It sounds like your customer is wearing blinders and only looking at how easy it would be for the programmer to code it. I think if you're opposed to C#, present a case in terms of dollars that will convince them the choice is ill considered. It's always all about money after all. JJS
Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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