Re: which object orient language is most suitable for embedded programming?



Steve at fivetrees wrote:

IMO/IME, C++ is just not well suited to embedded work (where by "embedded" I mean small micro, limited memory/speed, and *mostly* a "Thou Shalt Not Crash" degree of robustness).

Fundamentally, it's the runtime aspects of C++ I'm talking about (late binding, use of heap etc etc). I want as much reliance on compile-time determinism as I can muster.

The C++ is C with improvements. The good thing about it is if you don't like some of its features, you don't have to use those. Compared to C, the C++ simplifies the development and helps avoiding several kinds of mistakes.



Yes, there are better C++ compilers nowadays. Yes, one can avoid whole swathes of the language. And yes, it can be done. But again, OO is a *design* technique that can be implemented in any language.

This is true, however you have to put too much reliance on the developer.

And as I've probably mentioned before, I'm not convinced that C++ is a good language. Where by "good" I mean conducive to robust, readable, maintainable designs.

I know a company where the C++ is banned. All development has to be done in plain C. The problem they had before is that it is very difficult to understand and maintain the class hierarchy created by an idiot.


One can achieve better module independence (and data hiding) in
classic C than in classic C++ (private data/functions in a public prototype? WTF?).

This is a different problem. To be perfect, each and every project requires about 3 times more time and money then it can be allocated.


VLV
.

Loading