:: [DNG] C vs. ADA (was Re: C vs C++)
Inizio della pagina
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Autore: karl
Data:  
To: dng
Vecchi argomenti: Re: [DNG] C vs C++
Oggetto: [DNG] C vs. ADA (was Re: C vs C++)
Erik Christiansen:
> On 04.10.24 09:52, Kevin Chadwick via Dng wrote:
> > 4 Oct 2024 03:17:42 Erik Christiansen via Dng < dng@??? >:
> > > all healthy pointer work.
> > I think you're trolling?

...
I am perfectly confortable with pointers.

> Electricians are allowed to work on 230 Vac circuits, while muggles are
> not. That is not because electricians are high voltage insulators, but
> because of expertise.


Formely, electricians worked by rules of thumb, but nowadays what is
important is temperature avareness to prevent fire hazards, and
isolation to prevent personal hazards. And the rulbook has become
larger and larger and depending more and more on knowledge due
to hard lessons learned.

> > Even misra C isn't safe or reliable.

...
Misra C is a set of rules or guidelines, there is no programming
language, tool or product that "is" misra c. As with all things
security, it is a process.
https://misra.org.uk/app/uploads/2021/06/MISRA-Compliance-2020.pdf

https://learn.adacore.com/pdf_books/courses/Ada_For_The_Embedded_C_Developer.pdf
page 1, section 3, says:
This course also introduces you to the SPARK subset of the Ada programming language,
which removes a few features of the language with undefined behavior, so that the code is
fit for sound static analysis techniques.
So even ADA contains that.

> What counts is what works.

...

Yes, whatever tool you have, you have to know it to wield it
successfully. If you know the thing by heart then you know
instinctively what is worth trying. That how the great mathematicians
do it, if you don't do it by heart, your associations will be to slow.

> On the basis of evidence we may be sure that we are wrong
> but we can never be sure that we are right.        - Richard Feynman


Well, that is the basis of science, all hypotheses are viable unless
they are proved wrong.

Regards,
/Karl Hammar