Re: Safety-Critical Systems Developed Using C++

[k_e_n_s_a_i@my-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, 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.


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/