Re: Safety-Critical Systems Developed Using C++

["Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org>]

<k_e_n_s_a_i@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:947ddu$jpd$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
: In article <3A664EC4.6F679BE0@acm.org>,
:   Marin David Condic <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org> wrote:
: > You'll get a lot of argument there from this crowd! :-)
: >
: > I had a ten year study of error rates in embedded code for safety
: critical
: > systems. Moving to Ada reduced the error rates by a factor of four.
: Same
: > programmers. Same problem domain. Same sort of system architecture.
: No way
: > around it. Ada's compile time checking, strong typing, etc., reduced
: the
: > error rates. And not by just a little.
:
: hehe... excellent point.  I should have qualified my original statement
: by saying that I was speaking abstractly.  I've never programmed in
: ADA,

Who has? :)

: but will certainly grant that some languages are more prone to
: introduce or exacerbate programmer error than others. C/C++ has always
: been my example of an unforgiving and error-prone language, I just also
: happen to like it.
:
: Still, I would think it unlikely that military systems or other
: critical applications would be programmed in C/C++, even if some
: departments/projects seem to be switching to Windows as the foundation
: for their systems (someone please explain that one to me... not to drag
: this into the real of advocacy).  Also, it takes a long time for things
: to get approval for military use in the US, which immediately excludes
: C++ from the list of possible candidates.

Actually, current military directives don't require centralized approval of
languages. Depending upon the contract, the contractor often has complete
freedom in the choice of languages.