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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,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: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: johnb@invision.co.uk (John Birch) Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/01/14 Message-ID: <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 432614402 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: invision.demon.co.uk:158.152.59.42 References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se> X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 916337200 nnrp-07:27117 NO-IDENT invision.demon.co.uk:158.152.59.42 Reply-To: johnb@invision.co.uk 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: On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:06:27 +0100, Gerhard Menzl wrote: >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. 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! Since I do not regard dynamic memory allocation as a _good_ thing for most hard embedded systems, I find this claim well founded :-) > 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. 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! regards John B.