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: 103376,fdc75443ea18fb32 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-30 08:02:50 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Standard Queue status Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:32:55 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9u88r9$1v2$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <%QRM7.39743$xS6.65958@www.newsranger.com> <9u0qhb$pq5$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9u0ujd$rhg$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9u5ll7$ron$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9u61b8$3o9$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9u6e1d$903$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <1oNN7.43862$xS6.73757@www.newsranger.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1007134377 2018 136.170.200.133 (30 Nov 2001 15:32:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Nov 2001 15:32:57 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 comp.lang.ada:17224 Date: 2001-11-30T15:32:57+00:00 List-Id: Well, like I said, it depends a lot on your relative level of paranoia. :-) When I used to do flight-critical software, we wouldn't have done anything with dynamic storage out of fear that somehow, some way, a corner case might arise that threw the timing off (or something similar) and the box might crash - or worse. Its also much harder to verify dynamic memory stuff if you're doing real rigorous testing. Now that I'm working on programming digital TV boxes in C (with a *real* crappy, unstable OS! :-) with the only true realtime requirement being "Don't annoy the user too much" the thought of dynamic memory is a lot less scary. (Indeed, its being used all over the place and I think its one of the chief causes of our little box crashing a lot at the moment.) Worst case - the box crashes & reboots and maybe someone is annoyed that you messed up their attempt to record a rerun of "Gilligans Island". Mind you, there's always a variety of product warranty and liability issues. Not to mention corporate reputation, etc. Hence you still don't want any instability if at all possible. But its easier to tolerate a potential source of software errors in some environments than in others. 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:1oNN7.43862$xS6.73757@www.newsranger.com... > > Stuff like that can happen in our system quite easily. For example, a user who > knows just enough about the system to be dangerous could theoriticaly decide > that the navigational model is behaving too sluggishly for them, and go into our > configuration file and bump its iteration rate up to 30Hz where it doesn't even > have time to complete before the next iteration. Then they will start to get > overrun messages all over the place. Our answer to this is: "Don't do that". The > configuration stuff is there for diagnotic purposes, not for casual twiddling. > > --- > T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html > > No trees were killed in the sending of this message. > However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.