Re: shame on MISRA
- From: Colin Paul Gloster <Colin_Paul_Gloster@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Apr 2007 21:09:18 GMT
In news:oLSPh.494$r4.70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx timestamped Sun, 01 Apr
2007 18:22:12 GMT, ChrisQuayle <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> posted:
"[..]
How can you make any comparison if you have no knowledge of the
standard. [..]"
You do have a point that this certainly limits my ability. I am
however aware that C without MISRA is unsafe and full Ada is unsafe
and that full Ada is not nearly as bad as full C. True, one could
argue that a subset of C could be safer than some subset of
Ada. However, some restrictions (such as requiring no dead (never
reachable) code in a switch statement) can not happen in Ada, so I am
not convinced that starting by placing restrictions on something which
was far less suitable as a starting point is a good approach.
" To put this into perspective, it costs only approx 10.00 uk
pounds,"
That is a pretty sane price.
" less that you would pay for [..] beers."
As I am responsible, the price of the MISRA C standard is infinitely
times more than I would pay for such poison that impairs the faculty
of prudent judgment, impaired to such an extent that people are not
able to safely drive cars with MISRA C. Have I detected the reason you
are so defensive of MISRA C?
" Isn't such an
effort worth something in terms of professional development ?."
Yes, but ultimately I really doubt that the greatness of Ada will be
unproven by MISRA C and Ada is fit for purpose and I own hundreds of
monetary units' worth of other books for my professional development
which I do not have time to read promptly.
"In any case, your logic is flawed. It doesn't follow that because one
object in a class of objects is available at no cost, all the rest of
the objects in that class should be free, which in effect is what you
are arguing."
True. MISRA C contains something worth hiding, and charging money for
it is one way to deter people from it. Or should I mention that my
pro-C++ tutor does not wave around a bought copy of the C++ standard
when saying that he hoped that I would inject C++ into our code?
The MISRA C standard may cost money for a valid reason. I have a valid
reason to use another standard instead without needing to pay for
it. If I needed to pay for some standard, I could, if I needed it
(e.g. VHDL (though actually I think that some of the VHDL ex-standards
and maybe the VHDL standard eventually became free on the ludicrously
inadequate and usually not gratis IEEEXplore)), but in the MISRA C
versus Ada debate I see nothing to convince me that MISRA C is
worthwhile and that being the case, it is not a good advertisement for
spending money on it.
"> I am paid entirely by taxes as a researcher, so of course all of my
current work should be available for no extra charge and subject to peer review
and criticism. My tutors do not agree. Other work I had done was for ak
private former employer which has the right to choose whether or not that wor
is open source and whether or not that work is free to others. One
thing such a former employer can not do is choose for that work to be
free to the former employer because I had already been paid.
If you are a researcher, perhaps you would care to comment further on
the outrageous charges for online research reports these days, both
current and historical. Much of the work originally funded by the
taxpayer, but being openly sold at prices that make them inaccessable to
all but well heeled individuals or large organisations. $25 to $50 per
report, or several thousand dollars per annum is not unusual, for stuff
that has already been paid for. The results of publicly finded research
should be available at cost to anyone who wishes to access it, but
that's far from the case now. [..] a greedy, grasping attitude.
[..]"
As I made clear, the greed and unaccountability and secretiveness of
researchers is a disgrace. I do not restrict this complaint to "online
research". I do not really seem to have anything else to say about that.
"[..]
[..] C++ may have a role for consumer electronics
applications, where recovery is usually power off and reboot, but is it
really ready or appropriate for mission critical work ?..."
I do not know whether this is really true, but in the so-called
Republic of Ireland I shockingly heard of one deployed (and not
recalled) life-critical embedded medical software product which is
very crash prone, but which is designed to have a very quick reboot
time (far less than one second) such that it is expected that crashing
does not make the product unsafe. The person who claimed this said
that for his own work (business-critical but not life-critical and not
medical), he similarly does not bother to design his software so well
that it will not crash frequently, and that he tries to have data
structures in such a way that they are resilient to corruption from crashes.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: shame on MISRA
- From: Chris Hills
- Re: shame on MISRA
- References:
- Re: shame on MISRA
- From: Colin Paul Gloster
- Re: shame on MISRA
- From: ChrisQuayle
- Re: shame on MISRA
- Prev by Date: Re: Who is working with the SAM9263?
- Next by Date: Re: converting float to ascii w/o printf
- Previous by thread: Re: shame on MISRA
- Next by thread: Re: shame on MISRA
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
