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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Luke(Lujun) Zhang" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 21:47:28 -0800
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: "Luke(Lujun) Zhang" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (52 lines)
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.

Luke Zhang

--- 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> MISRA C is a
> standard
> 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
> potentially
> jeopardise
> 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
> safe.
> 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.