3 ms·
You should see some of the manuals I go through for our some of IoT devices. As far as how Lockheed Martin does it, this quote from the article linked by bri3d
by Quothling 10mo ago
You should see some of the manuals I go through for our some of IoT devices. As far as how Lockheed Martin does it, this quote from the article linked by bri3d answers it:
> MISRA-C was used as the basis for the C applications and a coding standards was developed with the assistance of Bjarne Stroustrup, original author of the C++ language. For both C and C++ Static Code Analysis (SCA) tools are used to ensure that restricted features are not utilized. Arguments about the lack of reliability in either C or C++ are addressed by programming standards restrictions and SCA checks. In truth, this approach is probably more consistent and robust than the manual checks used for previous development efforts including Ada.
- moffkalast 10mo agoAlright that makes far more sense than doing it the "bureaucratic" way. Non-compliant doesn't compile. Must be really annoying working on this codebase hah.
- Quothling 10mo agoI would argue that it would be very annoying to work on a code base which wasn't like this. Having to spend so much time figuring out where your bottlenecks are and why they are there. Though you would make a fair point in regards to how much code-fascism you need when you try to make C/C++ safer than ADA. I'm sure they didn't come to this conclusion lightly, but the first thing to pop into my head is that it seems odd to do this mainly because of hiring challenges. But C/C++ certainly did well enough for Lockheed Martin considering it's now one of their principal languages, if not the principal.