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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00, LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1143c4,7d107e452bdd8496 X-Google-Attributes: gid1143c4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1db77fbb2768946e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 115aec,7d107e452bdd8496 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-03 10:45:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: linux.dev.kernel,comp.realtime,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is Linux right for Embedded? Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:39:14 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9pfig3$dvl$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3BB69F21.B5AA7451@intercom.com> <9pcvbn$r52$1@xmission.xmission.com> <9pd4s402bga@drn.newsguy.com> <9pfcps$p0l$1@xmission.xmission.com> <3BBB409D.26EF7757@lmtas.lmco.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1002130755 14325 136.170.200.133 (3 Oct 2001 17:39:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Oct 2001 17:39:15 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com linux.dev.kernel:4473 comp.realtime:3952 comp.lang.ada:13685 Date: 2001-10-03T17:39:15+00:00 List-Id: If anecdotes count for anything, I could enumerate a long list of hours spent in the last few weeks (We're busy trying to test quality into the system! :-) where I've been tracking down memory leaks, dangling pointers, illegal memory references, and bad array indexes all because of pointer usage and/or lack of checks in C which - FWIW - wouldn't happen in Ada because of the a) limited use of pointers, b) scope rules, c) compile time checks or d) run time checks. I recall a Bell Labs study of bugs in one of their big switching applications in which the report found a whole slew of common bugs which were classified into types & examples given. Their recommendation was to institute coding standards and code reviews to check for those specific problems. The overwhelming bulk of the bug types they identified were impossible to commit in Ada because of compile or runtime checks and the rest were highly unlikely because Ada doesn't depend on addresses/pointers for everything in sight. Its anectdotal, but it adds a level of experience and reasoning that explains *why* the studies indicate superior productivity/error rates with Ada vs C. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Ted Dennison" wrote in message news:gGHu7.14498$ev2.23688@www.newsranger.com... > > However, if there *were* numbers on C vs. Fortran, I wouldn't be shocked to see > Fortran (even F77) come out on top. C's overeliance on pointers cause a great > deal of its problems. But this is all theoretical. The numbers on Ada and C > actually exist. >