On 1/30/21 9:52 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote:
On 1/29/21 10:03 PM, Guy Sotomayor via cctalk wrote:
And unfortunately some industries it is prohibited. Those industries
*require* conformance to MISRA, CERT-C, ISO-26262 and others. There is
*no* choice since the code has to be audited and compliance is *not*
optional.
Just an illustration of what happens when you take a "portable
alternative to assembly" and put lipstick on it. I've been programming
C since System III Unix and I still consider it to be a portable (sort
of) alternative to assembly.
One of the problems with C, in my view, is a lack of direction. There
are plenty of languages that aim for specific ends. (e.g. COBOL =
business/commercial, FORTRAN = scientific, Java = web applications,
etc.). But whence C or C++?
In my dotage, I do a fair amount of MCU programming nowadays, and C is
the lingua franca in that world; the only real alternative is assembly,
so that makes some sense. Python, Ada, etc. never really managed to
make much headway there. C is far more prevalent than C++ in that
world, FWIW.
Does standard C have vector extensions yet? I was an alternate rep for
my firm for F90 (was supposed to be F88) for vector extensions; it's
just a matter of curiosity.
I've been writing in C since 1977 (Unix V6 days and went through the =+
to += conversion in V7). I've seen *a lot* of changes in C over that time.
Most of what I do is low level stuff (OS, RTOS, etc) and actually
*rarely* even use the C library (most of what I build is built with
-nostdlibs).
I typically build using -c99 but I'm looking at C11 because of atomics
that were introduced then but I have to see what's native compiler
generated versus what it relies on for the atomic operations. I haven't
yet seen what's in C17 yet. I've also been known to write a special
hand crafted function so that an entire portion of the C library doesn't
get pulled in. Not only did it save a bunch of space but it was *much*
faster too.
TTFN - Guy
