3 ms·

Does that also mean that embedded programming involves being conservative about compiler updates? Because otherwise those choices might become completely invali

• electroly 4y ago
  It's not unreasonable to stick with the same compiler version for the entire life of a product. I was involved with a hardware project where we attempted to upgrade the compiler mid-lifecycle; it caused a subtle malfunction (almost certainly due to a latent bug or undocumented compiler behavior dependency in our code, but we couldn't find it) and we simply decided never to upgrade the compiler for the life of the product. It wasn't considered a big deal to do so.
  • userbinator 4y ago
    The basic principle is that known unknowns are better than unknown unknowns.
    • ncmncm 4y ago
      Which are in turn better than unknown knowns, or things you were just sure were true, but just ain't. Had you not been "sure", you might have done something that would work right.
    • AshamedCaptain 4y ago
      It's worse than that; many times the principle is: known evils are better than unknown angels.
• adrianN 4y ago
  For safety critical software for example upgrading the compiler means you need to recertify the product. That's very expensive.
  • vanderZwan 4y ago
    That makes sense, and I'm glad to hear they have those strict rules given how terrible we are at making reliable software