4 ms·
If you go down to micro-controller levels, you often times are stuck with C++ 2003 and a vendor specific compiler, which means you will lack many of the nicetie
by devbent 10y ago
If you go down to micro-controller levels, you often times are stuck with C++ 2003 and a vendor specific compiler, which means you will lack many of the niceties in the article.
I agree with him that removing the entire standard library is needed. Of course you then need to copy an implementation of printf from somewhere, and likely set it up to only work in your debug builds. Then you quickly figure out that the standard library has a lot of things you didn't even realize you depended on. Math functions typically pop up next, you'll likely end up using a vendor library (by which I mean ARM's), but if you are doing a bunch of math heavy work, and even more so if your chip has some limited FP capabilities (assuming it has an FPU at all), you may also find the need to re-implement some functions based on your performance needs.
Embedded is fun. :)
All that said, I would kill for access to proper lambdas.
- taneq 10y ago> If you go down to micro-controller levels, you often times are stuck with C++ 2003 This makes me feel so old. Back when I started, C on a micro-controller was a rare treat and most things were done in some obscure chip-specific assembler. I had a play with an Arduino knockoff a few weeks ago, kids these days don't know how good they've got it!
- adrianN 10y agoMore like a partially supported C++98 and a compiler with a bunch of bugs that force you to use only half of that.