Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:14:35 +0800
Merry Christmas All
Santa told me that if MISRA take out 'aspects of the C language which
should be avoided in safety-related systems' they'll have to move to Ada
because there won't be much C left ;]
ho, Ho, HO!
School of Computing and Information Science
Edith Cowan University
2 Bradford St, Mt Lawley
Perth, Western Australia
mob: +61 040 910 6049 /-_|\
"Confound those who have said our remarks before us"
Aelius Donatus (4th Century)
>>> "Luke(Lujun) Zhang" <[log in to unmask]> 12/16/02 13:54 PM >>>
Maybe the people who made the decision on which
language don't have an overall view of the strength
and weakness of Ada and C++ languages. Or they don't
have an enough long-term expectation on final system
before making the decision.
--- Terry Westley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I just heard that some organization (perhaps
> Lockheed or JSF SPO)
> has chosen MISRA C over Ada for JSF flight software.
> According to http://www.misra.org.uk/> MISRA C is a
> for a "restricted subset of a high-level language
> for programming
> safety-related systems. The C programming language
> is being increasingly
> used for automotive applications, due largely to the
> inherent language
> flexibility, the extent of support and its potential
> for portability
> across a wide range of hardware. However the nature
> of the C language
> is such that there are many areas of concern which
> the high level of integrity required from the final
> executable code."
> Why in the world would you choose an inherently
> unsafe language for
> any safety-critical application? I can't look at
> the standard because
> you have to buy a copy. I hope they recommend
> against the use of
> pointers and C arrays, otherwise you can't make C
> Surely Spark Ada would have been a better choice.
> Terry Westley
> [log in to unmask]
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.