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: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 19:07:53 +0100
Content-Disposition: inline
Reply-To: "Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: <002101c758c6$5f957df0$4201a8c0@glenburgie>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dirk Craeynest <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (37 lines)
= > > I suspect MISRA-C ( not C++.
= > 
= > With its recommendation to use Ada or Modula-2 rather than C.
= I've seen this quoted before but I can't find it
= (
= f)

See <>:

I quote:

1.2  MISRA C Coding Guidelines

"Examples of languages generally recognised to be more suitable than C
[for safety related software] are Ada and Modula-2.  If such languages
could be available for a proposed system then their use should be
seriously considered in preference to C."

Document at:

The quoted paragraph is on the bottom of page 3 of the referenced


[log in to unmask] (for Ada-Belgium/-Europe/SIGAda/WG9 mail)

*** 12th Intl.Conf.on Reliable Software Technologies - Ada-Europe'2007
*** June 25-29, 2007 * Geneva, Switzerland *