21 ms·

C++ is likely the best bet for this kind of thing. Or rather, a strict subset of C++. You want real time, you want a minimal OS and you probably want some of t

C++ is likely the best bet for this kind of thing. Or rather, a strict subset of C++. You want real time, you want a minimal OS and you probably want some of the nicer type capabilities over c.

engi_nerd 10y ago
>strict subset of C++ http://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf http://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf Here's the link that gets posted in all of these conversations. A strict subset of C++ is exactly what's been used.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
It depends muchly. In general, I'd rather have a seasoned set of 'C' programmers rather than people who are unconcerned with what happens at the level of the metal. But that's probably a personal bias, one that's been hard-earned. It's a way of leveraging the decades of mistakes made by those folks - and aid for by previous employers. A "'C' with classes" approach is probably a good one - but I'd hate to find some subtle template or Boost bug in mid flight... This is all IMO, but an approach like Bruce Powell Douglass "Doing Hard Time' is a pretty good way to satisfy the "systems engineer" customers for UML charts and still have rigorous development. UML is quite the anti-pattern and Rose is kind of awful but this should be a compromise that can work. CASE tools have gone out of fashion.
- rat87 10y ago
  > A "'C' with classes" approach is probably a good one - but I'd hate to find some subtle template or Boost bug in mid flight... I'm not sure how much benefit that would bring, especially since dynamic dispatch is probably not encouraged. As for templates I'm not much of a c++ guy but wouldn't most template errors exist at compile time?
  - albinofrenchy 10y ago
    Templates are mostly problems at compile time, but it's also possible to have subtle issues with complicated template specializations where it doesn't call the function you expect. So complicated usages are discouraged, BUT simple ones that give code reuse with strong typing are great advantages over c in most cases. I think dynamic dispatch would be more permissible than you might think. You end up doing it in c manually in complicated code bases, might as well let the compiler dou the heavy lifting.
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    I'm not thinking of any specific pathology. It's just been my experience that with templates, there is always some risk of harder to catch errors. If it's explicit in 'C'/C++ , its just explicit and nobody's making any assumptions.

C++ is likely the best bet for this kind of thing. Or rather, a strict subset of C++. You want real time, you want a minimal OS and you probably want some of the nicer type capabilities over c.

engi_nerd 10y ago

>strict subset of C++ http://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf http://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf Here's the link that gets posted in all of these conversations. A strict subset of C++ is exactly what's been used.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

It depends muchly. In general, I'd rather have a seasoned set of 'C' programmers rather than people who are unconcerned with what happens at the level of the metal. But that's probably a personal bias, one that's been hard-earned. It's a way of leveraging the decades of mistakes made by those folks - and aid for by previous employers. A "'C' with classes" approach is probably a good one - but I'd hate to find some subtle template or Boost bug in mid flight... This is all IMO, but an approach like Bruce Powell Douglass "Doing Hard Time' is a pretty good way to satisfy the "systems engineer" customers for UML charts and still have rigorous development. UML is quite the anti-pattern and Rose is kind of awful but this should be a compromise that can work. CASE tools have gone out of fashion.

rat87 10y ago
> A "'C' with classes" approach is probably a good one - but I'd hate to find some subtle template or Boost bug in mid flight... I'm not sure how much benefit that would bring, especially since dynamic dispatch is probably not encouraged. As for templates I'm not much of a c++ guy but wouldn't most template errors exist at compile time?
- albinofrenchy 10y ago
  Templates are mostly problems at compile time, but it's also possible to have subtle issues with complicated template specializations where it doesn't call the function you expect. So complicated usages are discouraged, BUT simple ones that give code reuse with strong typing are great advantages over c in most cases. I think dynamic dispatch would be more permissible than you might think. You end up doing it in c manually in complicated code bases, might as well let the compiler dou the heavy lifting.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  I'm not thinking of any specific pathology. It's just been my experience that with templates, there is always some risk of harder to catch errors. If it's explicit in 'C'/C++ , its just explicit and nobody's making any assumptions.