From -655703697805275414 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,1a41e51653d5c16a X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: James Kanze Subject: Re: C++ for embedded systems Date: 1997/07/08 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 255564735 References: <33BB6ED3.5CFE@stgl.sel.alcatel.de> X-Original-Date: 08 Jul 1997 11:15:50 +0200 Organization: - X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++ iQBVAwUBM8KOKky4NqrwXLNJAQELpgH9GGJcR3l5NrIqVoVBT0CHWq3ohd5jzlBE ArqWsWLeH4vuj67AqvuvMDXE3Y0knaIUBeuf4HrRrh+NdBXH6Vo5sQ== =7Gg9 Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Originator: austern@isolde.mti.sgi.com bs@research.att.com (Bjarne Stroustrup) writes: |> Martin Lang writes: |> |> |> I heard some rumours about a stripped down version of C++ that |> |> can be used for embedded systems. |> |> |> |> Does anybody know more details? Do any proposals already exist? |> |> The key to successful use of C++ for embedded systems is a modest |> amount of understanding of how code is generated rather than artificially |> stripped down versions of the language. For starters, "embedded systems" |> is a label that covers a lot of diverse needs. |> |> If you chose a "stripped down version," be sure that it is a subset of |> the (draft) Standard C++ and its library rather than a dialect. I think that this is the intent of the EC++ group. As I understand it, 100% of the programs written in EC++ should be legal C++ programs, with the same semantics. I don't think that their goal is to criticize C++ per se. In the rest of you posting, you correctly point out that when programming for embedded systems, you will probably only use a subset of C++. I think that there main goal is to standardize what that subset should be. A second goal might be to do it now. I don't think that anyone would argue that templates are inherently a problem for an embedded system. But the exact semantics of templates are still being discussed (or were a couple of weeks ago). In the information I read about embedded C++, templates were not included exclusively for this reason. I think that their goal is laudable. Basically, what they are saying (or what they seem to be saying, to me) is that here is a subset of C++ that you can safely use today in a particular subset of the applications. I don't see this as a criticism of the rest of C++, but simply recognizing the realities of today, and current compilers. -- James Kanze home: kanze@gabi-soft.fr +33 (0)1 39 55 85 62 office: kanze@vx.cit.alcatel.fr +33 (0)1 69 63 14 54 GABI Software, Sarl., 22 rue Jacques-Lemercier, F-78000 Versailles France -- Conseils en informatique industrielle -- --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles: Try just posting with your newsreader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu ]