TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 20:06:58 +1100
Reply-To: "Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
From: Zoe Brain <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (27 lines)
C & U Grein wrote:
> Colin Paul Gloster schrieb:
>> Can't see why it should. It's supposed to be C++ certification.
>> It could well include knowledge of how to write robust C++ code.
>> Do people write safety critical applications in C++? The thought 
>> shocks me.
> I guess they do Modern cars like Mercedes and BMW have a lot of code 
> inside - and they don't use Ada AFAIK.
No, they don't. If you're lucky, they use MISRA-C

I'm doing my PhD on automotive software development. We already have a 
nice model compiler that takes requirements (not designs) expressed in 
xtUML and generates Ada-95 systems from them. Contact and ask about their BILBY model compiler.

We hope to apply that to automotive systems soon - measuring footprint, 
real-time performance and so on. After that, re-jig the model compiler 
so it produces SPARK-95, and code  that complies with avionics standards 
and is also formally provable.

Right now, automotive manufacturers are dreadfully vulnerable to legal 
challenge. The software they produce is very good, quite safe, but as 
it's in C and produced handraulically, they can't prove that they're 
using "best practices".