3 ms·
From the previous blog post ("Part 1: The Pitch"[1]): > We hope that the Sealed Rust effort would be applicable to any developers working in safety critical so
by banana_smoothie 7y ago
From the previous blog post ("Part 1: The Pitch"[1]):
> We hope that the Sealed Rust effort would be applicable to any developers working in safety critical software domains, such as:
> Automotive (under safety standard ISO26262)
> Industrial (under safety standard IEC61508)
> Robotics (under a number of safety standards deriving from IEC61508)
> Medical Devices (under safety standard IEC62304)
> Avionics (under safety standard DO-178)
[1]: https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/sealed-rust-the-pitch/ https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/sealed-rust-the-pitch/
- sriram_sun 7y agoI work in medical devices and out-of-the-box rust would be a much better option than the C++ systems we build! There is competition in this space from qnx as well. Take a look at the medical device alarms standard IEC 60601-1-8. It's possible to provide a very generic implementation of the standard for high, low and medium priority alarms. Could act as a trojan horse to introduce your back end messaging, logging, shared memory infrastructure - all developed according to ISO 62304 (of course)!