3 ms·
Could you be more specific? Are they badly written, or are they bad at achieving the intended purpose? Or is the purpose itself a bad idea? And, whichever an
by AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Could you be more specific? Are they badly written, or are they bad at achieving the intended purpose? Or is the purpose itself a bad idea?
And, whichever answer you give to that, why are they bad at it?
- cyberax 3y agoThey are called "misery C" by people in the industry for a reason. They don't help with the safety all that much, but make a lot of code just fucking ugly.
- GeorgeTirebiter 3y agoExactly. It reduced C to, almost, BASIC. Reduces available design patterns. Reduces available language features. HOWEVER: having a MISRA-C LINT which is required to run on all code that makes it into an automobile is, ultimately, a good thing. Yes, the homogenization is ugly, but it does mean that classes of errors just can't occur. The concept is great. There is also MISRA C++ of which I know almost nothing; is that any better?
- gte525u 3y agoMISRA C++ lags quite a bit relative to C++'s evolution over the last 20 years. It's closer to JSF C++ style guide.
- bee_rider 3y agoI only wrote a little MISRA-C code, but IIRC we had a process to get waivers which was fairly reasonable I think. BASIC, but with a human-driven process that bumps you back to C when necessary, with the understanding that multiple people look at the evil C-like code, actually seems like a fine language.
- Avshalom 3y agoThey're called "misery C" because it's an easy joke.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]