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: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 101b33,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid101b33,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public X-Google-Thread: 115aec,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public From: "Pat Rogers" Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/01/14 Message-ID: <77ledn$eu7$1@remarQ.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 432634359 References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se> <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@remarQ.com X-Trace: 916339959 Y6JRGRJUHDE8CC640C usenet78.supernews.com Organization: Software Arts & Sciences 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: John Birch wrote in message <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk>... >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 :-) While I certainly agree that the default implementation -- in both Ada 95 and C++ -- for dynamic allocation is probably not desirable in a real-time environment, in both languages once can easily define how allocation is done while still using the language's syntax (i.e., "new", in both). As a result allocation can be completely deterministic, without resorting to user-defined functions. So "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" as the saying goes. --- Pat Rogers Training & Development in: http://www.classwide.com Deadline Schedulability Analysis progers@acm.org Software Fault Tolerance (281)648-3165 Real-Time/OO Languages