From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f849b,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf849b,public X-Google-Thread: 101b33,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid101b33,public X-Google-Thread: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 115aec,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public X-Google-Thread: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: Gerhard Menzl Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/01/14 Message-ID: <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 432510181 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Ericsson Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java,comp.java.advocacy,comp.realtime,comp.arch.embedded,comp.object,comp.lang.java.programmer Date: 1999-01-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Erik Funkenbusch wrote: > >- be suitable for design of embedded systems > > C++ generally isn't. There is an "embedded C++" that's in the works, and > there might even be some implementations. C is better for embedded work > than C++. This claim is completely unfounded. Since C is "for all practical purposes" (as Bjarne Stroustrup puts it) a subset of C++, there is no reason why C should be a better choice, providing compilers are available for both languages. Whether certain *features* of C++ such as templates or exceptions can be reasonably used on embedded systems is a matter of debate. Gerhard Menzl