Re: Reference-oriented language and high-integrity software

["Dr. Adrian Wrigley" <amtw@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>]

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 12:37:35 +0000, Peter Amey wrote:

> Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> 
> [snip]
>> 
>> And last but not least, how does the JB's statement stand in front of 
>> things like RealTime Java or even HIJA (High-Integrity Java)
> 
> The answer to this one is, I think, a bit easier.  Neither RealTime Java 
> nor HIJA can reasonably be described as Java.  The last time I looked, 
> both required special compilers; were designed to produce native machine 
> code not an interpreted J code; allocated objects on the stack rather 
> than heap; and had no garbage collection.  The restrictions mean that 
> you cannot use any of the standard libraries and don't get platform 
> portable code; the two primary attraction of Java in the first place. 
> What you do have is two new languages that just happen to have a 
> Java-like syntax.  The modifications required to give these new 
> languages their real-time and high integrity credentials are precisely 
> aligned with John Barnes's objections to them.

So the advantage is that you can attempt use existing programmers
for writing high integrity/real-time software.  And the code
produced can even be executed with standard compilers/runtimes,
albeit without the benefits of the HI/RT environment.
And of course, all the IDEs, code analysis tools can be used.
Sounds rather useful.

The skeptics (Martin) are saying the only benefit is better buzz-words.
But then SPARK Ada is based on the same philosophy (restricted
language, compiler, run-time to achieve tougher HI/RT goals).
--
Adrian