Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C++ > MISRA-C++

Reply
Thread Tools

MISRA-C++

 
 
Mike Smith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2005
Chris Hills wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mike Smith
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>>Chris Hills wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry I thought everyone knew of MISRA-C and therefore would know what
>>>MISRA-C++ would be. Certainly anyone working in embedded systems or
>>>high-integrity systems should do.

>>
>>Which would mean that your assumption would have been correct for a
>>newsgroup dedicated to the development of embedded systems.

>
>
> I said embedded or high integrity.


Then find your self a comp.systems.high-integrity newsgroup.

>>This is a
>>newsgroup dedicated to discussion of the ISO standard C++ language.

>
> Sorry Mike, My mistake, I thought MISRA-C++ was something to do with C++
> standardisation.


Apology accepted. The C++ language is standardized by ISO, not by
MISRA. MISRA can standardize a particular *way of using* the ISO
standard C++ language if they want, but that's not the same thing.

> MISRA-C certainly has become a major influence on C.


"Having a major influence on" and "defining the standard for" are not
the same thing.

> On the other hand you are probably right. C++ language "experts"
> probably want nothing to do with actually using the language.
>
> When you say embedded systems you mean ones using the 32 and 64 bit
> processors and RTOS like Linux, Solaris, Unix and Win CE? Systems with
> 2 gigabyte hard drives and 500 Mb memory?
>
> But as this NG does not do embedded or high integrity I can only assume
> you are only interested in low integrity systems


Gee, first you apologize, then you troll/flame/insult. What are we to
think?

When it comes to c.l.c++, my interest is in *the C++ language*, and has
nothing to do with embedded vs. desktop (even though my area of
involvement tends toward the embedded), or high vs. low integrity (and
you bet your ass that my area of involvement tends toward high rather
than low integrity). There's not need for you to get insulting, just
because you posted something to the wrong newsgroup.

--
Mike Smith
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike Smith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2005
Andre Kostur wrote:
> Chris Hills <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>
>>In article <UAiRe.31440$(E-Mail Removed)01.us.to.ver io.net>,
>>Victor Bazarov <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>
>>>Chris Hills wrote:
>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>On the other hand you are probably right. C++ language "experts"
>>>>probably want nothing to do with actually using the language.
>>>
>>>You know, I am offended by this remark. Not only have you no idea
>>>where to post or how to post,

>>
>>You think it should not be posted here. Myself and another who commented
>>think it is relevant. On that straw poll I would say you are wrong.

>
>
> OK... then I vote on Victor's side.


And I would have thought that my previous post would also have been so
interpreted.

--
Mike Smith
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chris Hills
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mike Smith
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Chris Hills wrote:
>>
>> Sorry I thought everyone knew of MISRA-C and therefore would know what
>> MISRA-C++ would be. Certainly anyone working in embedded systems or
>> high-integrity systems should do.

>
>Which would mean that your assumption would have been correct for a
>newsgroup dedicated to the development of embedded systems. This is a
>newsgroup dedicated to discussion of the ISO standard C++ language.
>
>--
>Mike Smith


No that would be comp.std.c++
This is a general C++ NG.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Hills
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2005
In article <Xns96C361799F2C3nntpspamkosturnet@207.35.177.135> , Andre
Kostur <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Chris Hills <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> In article <UAiRe.31440$(E-Mail Removed)01.us.to.ver io.net>,
>> Victor Bazarov <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>Chris Hills wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> On the other hand you are probably right. C++ language "experts"
>>>> probably want nothing to do with actually using the language.
>>>
>>>You know, I am offended by this remark. Not only have you no idea
>>>where to post or how to post,

>>
>> You think it should not be posted here. Myself and another who commented
>> think it is relevant. On that straw poll I would say you are wrong.

>
>OK... then I vote on Victor's side. I see no Standard C++ content in your
>original post.


Why should there be I was not posting to comp.std.c++ If you want to
only discuss the C++ standard then go there. This is a group to discuss
C++ in general. So the new MISRA C++ is on topic.

> Only a reference to some other group who apparently want to
>draw up some coding guidelines, presumably only using Standard C++
>facilities.


Some other group? MISRA has at the moment the most widely used C coding
standard there is. I think some one worked out there are more copies of
MISRA-C being used than the C99 standard. That is why MISRA were asked
to do the C++ version.


> And you follow up with some whiny statement about how the
>denizens of comp.lang.c++ don't actually use the language. Very
>professional of you.


I asked if the only thing they were interested in was C++
standardisation (in which case the are in the wrong group) or the
practical application of C++

Some one seemed to think that embedded and high integrity C++ had no
place here. Which leaves what? Low integrity?


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ (E-Mail Removed) www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



 
Reply With Quote
 
Victor Bazarov
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2005
Chris Hills wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mike Smith
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>>Chris Hills wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry I thought everyone knew of MISRA-C and therefore would know what
>>>MISRA-C++ would be. Certainly anyone working in embedded systems or
>>>high-integrity systems should do.

>>
>>Which would mean that your assumption would have been correct for a
>>newsgroup dedicated to the development of embedded systems. This is a
>>newsgroup dedicated to discussion of the ISO standard C++ language.
>>
>>--
>>Mike Smith

>
>
> No that would be comp.std.c++


No, 'comp.std.c++' discusses C++ Standard. We here discuss Standard C++.

> This is a general C++ NG.
>


There is no such thing as "general C++". I think it's time for you to
read the Welcome message and the FAQ.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andre Kostur
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2005
Chris Hills <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> In article <Xns96C361799F2C3nntpspamkosturnet@207.35.177.135> , Andre
> Kostur <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>Chris Hills <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> In article
>>> <UAiRe.31440$(E-Mail Removed)01.us.to.ver io.net>, Victor
>>> Bazarov <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>>Chris Hills wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> On the other hand you are probably right. C++ language "experts"
>>>>> probably want nothing to do with actually using the language.
>>>>
>>>>You know, I am offended by this remark. Not only have you no idea
>>>>where to post or how to post,
>>>
>>> You think it should not be posted here. Myself and another who
>>> commented think it is relevant. On that straw poll I would say you
>>> are wrong.

>>
>>OK... then I vote on Victor's side. I see no Standard C++ content in
>>your original post.

>
> Why should there be I was not posting to comp.std.c++ If you want to
> only discuss the C++ standard then go there. This is a group to
> discuss C++ in general. So the new MISRA C++ is on topic.


This is where you appear to be going wrong. You seem to not be able to
see the difference between "discussing the C++ Standard" and "using the
C++ Standard".

>> Only a reference to some other group who apparently want to
>>draw up some coding guidelines, presumably only using Standard C++
>>facilities.

>
> Some other group? MISRA has at the moment the most widely used C
> coding standard there is. I think some one worked out there are more
> copies of MISRA-C being used than the C99 standard. That is why MISRA
> were asked to do the C++ version.


Yep. Some other group. Apparently more than one of us has never heard
of them.

>> And you follow up with some whiny statement about how the
>>denizens of comp.lang.c++ don't actually use the language. Very
>>professional of you.

>
> I asked if the only thing they were interested in was C++
> standardisation (in which case the are in the wrong group) or the
> practical application of C++


Nope. Here in clc++ we're interested in the usage of Standard C++.
csc++ deals with the standardization aspect. After they're done with it
is when we start discussing it. 3rd party libraries (for example) are
off-topic. We don't care that they happen to be written in C++.

> Some one seemed to think that embedded and high integrity C++ had no
> place here. Which leaves what? Low integrity?


No, some one seemed to think that C++ _that is specific to_ embedded and
high integrity has no place here. Similarly C++ _that is specific to_
low integrity is equally off-topic. Here we call that "implementation
and/or platform specific details", and is off-topic (unless we're dealing
with a subset of Standard C++, but then the detail that it is embedded or
not is an irrelevant detail).
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alexander Terekhov
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2005

Victor Bazarov wrote:
[...]
> There is no such thing as "general C++". I think it's time for you to
> read the Welcome message and the FAQ.


na zabore ... napisan, a tam drova.

</ping>

regards,
alexander.
 
Reply With Quote
 
REH
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2005

Andre Kostur wrote:

> OK... then I vote on Victor's side. I see no Standard C++ content in your
> original post. Only a reference to some other group who apparently want to
> draw up some coding guidelines, presumably only using Standard C++
> facilities. And you follow up with some whiny statement about how the
> denizens of comp.lang.c++ don't actually use the language. Very
> professional of you.


I don't have an opinion as to whether MISRA C++ discussion is OT or
not, but as someone who does write embedded system, I don't care about
a MISRA C++ "standard" anymore than the Embedded C++ "standard." The
only standard I care about (language-wise) is the actual C++ Standard.
Give me that, and I'll decide what parts are proper to use in my
development. So, I guess on that score, I too am with Victor.

REH

 
Reply With Quote
 
LR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2005
Chris Hills wrote:

> In article <Xns96C361799F2C3nntpspamkosturnet@207.35.177.135> , Andre
> Kostur <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>>Chris Hills <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>
>>>In article <UAiRe.31440$(E-Mail Removed)01.us.to.ver io.net>,
>>>Victor Bazarov <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>
>>>>Chris Hills wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>On the other hand you are probably right. C++ language "experts"
>>>>>probably want nothing to do with actually using the language.
>>>>
>>>>You know, I am offended by this remark. Not only have you no idea
>>>>where to post or how to post,
>>>
>>>You think it should not be posted here. Myself and another who commented
>>>think it is relevant. On that straw poll I would say you are wrong.

>>
>>OK... then I vote on Victor's side. I see no Standard C++ content in your
>>original post.

>
>
> Why should there be I was not posting to comp.std.c++ If you want to
> only discuss the C++ standard then go there. This is a group to discuss
> C++ in general.


I don't think that's correct, but perhaps I'm wrong.

> So the new MISRA C++ is on topic.


Could you could please consult the FAQ for this group and tell us if you
think the FAQ can be interpreted such that what you're posting is on topic?

http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...t.html#faq-5.9

TIA

LR
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Hills
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-31-2005
In article <lMoRe.2028$(E-Mail Removed)>, LR
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Chris Hills wrote:
>
>> In article <Xns96C361799F2C3nntpspamkosturnet@207.35.177.135> , Andre
>> Kostur <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>
>>>Chris Hills <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <UAiRe.31440$(E-Mail Removed)01.us.to.ver io.net>,
>>>>Victor Bazarov <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>>
>>>>>Chris Hills wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>On the other hand you are probably right. C++ language "experts"
>>>>>>probably want nothing to do with actually using the language.
>>>>>
>>>>>You know, I am offended by this remark. Not only have you no idea
>>>>>where to post or how to post,
>>>>
>>>>You think it should not be posted here. Myself and another who commented
>>>>think it is relevant. On that straw poll I would say you are wrong.
>>>
>>>OK... then I vote on Victor's side. I see no Standard C++ content in your
>>>original post.

>>
>>
>> Why should there be I was not posting to comp.std.c++ If you want to
>> only discuss the C++ standard then go there. This is a group to discuss
>> C++ in general.

>
>I don't think that's correct, but perhaps I'm wrong.
>
>> So the new MISRA C++ is on topic.

>
>Could you could please consult the FAQ for this group and tell us if you
>think the FAQ can be interpreted such that what you're posting is on topic?
>
>http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lit...t.html#faq-5.9
>
>TIA
>


it says

"Only post to comp.lang.c++ if your question is about the C++ language
itself. For example, C++ code design, syntax, style, rules, bugs, etc.
Ultimately this means your question must be answerable by looking into
the C++ language definition as determined by the ISO/ANSI C++ Standard
document, and by planned extensions and adjustments"

So yes MISRA-C++ as a subset coding guide is directly relevant to
syntax, style, rules, bugs etc in the ISO C++ standard. Especially the
"planned extensions and adjustments".

However I find the narrow minded view of a few people here breathtaking.

In another NG someone commented on just this sort of attitude that
killed off Pascal and Basic also leading C a long way from it' users to
the extent there have been virtually no compiler implementations of the
C99 standard in the last 6 years.

In fact all three language standards now have little bearing on the
industrial use of those languages.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ (E-Mail Removed) www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Advertisments