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: 115aec,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 101b33,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid101b33,public X-Google-Thread: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: Gerhard Menzl Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/01/15 Message-ID: <369F1D39.64A65BC1@sea.ericsson.se>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 432899637 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se> <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk> 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: 1999-01-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: John Birch wrote: > There are many embedded programmers who regard the concept of dynamic > memory allocation in an embedded system as laughable at best and a > terminal offence at worst. If you restict C++ in such a way (i.e. > prevented the use of dynamic memory allocation) you'd pretty much end > up with C anyway! You would end up with a better C that gives you stronger type checking, const correctness etc. It would still be C++, which is a multi-paradigm programming language. > Since I do not regard dynamic memory allocation as a _good_ thing for > most hard embedded systems, I find this claim well founded :-) That depends entirely on the allocation mechanism, I would say. C++ allows the programmer to overload operators new and delete to define any form of allocation, such as distributing chunks of memory from a preallocated pool. There are RTOSes which have such mechanisms built in. > Except that a perfectly valid ANSI C program need not compile or > execute correctly under C++. Consequently, if it's a subset, it's a > pretty poor one! C code that does not compile under C++ is either very obscure, or it fails to comply with the stronger type checking requirements of C++. Neither case can be considered as essential to embedded systems programming. Or would you claim that embedded systems code has to be obscure or requires weak type checking? "*Good* C programs tend to be C++ programs." (B. Stroustrup: The C++ Programming Language, 3rd ed., p. 13). Gerhard Menzl