The space and defence don't share what they are doing. So I don't think yours is reasonable statement that you know what is happening in the aerospace and defence industry.
Anyway you jumped to a conclusion of reverse engineering when I was referring to the benefit of traceability when using interpretive code. On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, 12:40 Dave Newton, <davelnew...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 06:36 Zahid Rahman <zahidr1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > You're right except in a bespoke hardware , software environment they > tend > > to use 68k Motorola chip to eliminate internal unknown risks. > > > I haven't worked on a 68k product for twenty years--I'd be *very* surprised > if anyone had designed one into a system in the last decade or more. I'm > not sure if they still produce the hardened version, but I don't recall > many space-based systems using them, although it was in some military > hardware--a long time ago. > > But that's not really relevant--almost nobody does embedded systems work; > it's an edge-case. > > > -- > em: davelnew...@gmail.com > mo: 908-380-8699 > tw: @dave_newton <https://twitter.com/dave_newton> > li: dave-newton <https://www.linkedin.com/in/dave-newton/> > gh: davelnewton <https://github.com/davelnewton> > so: Dave Newton <http://stackoverflow.com/users/438992/dave-newton> > bl[0]: Bucky Bits <http://buckybits.blogspot.com/> > bl[1]: Maker's End Blog <https://blog.makersend.com> > sk: davelnewton_skype >
