Re: Heads-up: volatile and C++

[Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>]

Paul Koning wrote:
> > > > > > "Marcin" == Marcin Dalecki <martin@dalecki.de> writes:
>
>
>  Marcin> On 2005-04-15, at 20:18, Mike Stump wrote:
>
>  >> On Thursday, April 14, 2005, at 08:48 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
>  >>> Templates are a no-go for a well known and well defined subset
>  >>> for C++ for embedded programming known commonly as well embedded
>  >>> C++.
>  >> My god, you didn't actually buy into that did you?  Hint, it was
>  >> is, and always will be a joke.
>
>  Marcin> You dare to explain what's so funny about it?
>
> The fact that many of the C++ features omitted from "embedded C++" are
> perfectly valid and useful for embedded systems programming, and cause
> neither space nor speed problems in the hands of reasonably competent
> programmers. 

One other driver here is certification issues. For example, there are
severe concerns about safety critical certification of dynamic
dispatching, and templates (and Ada generics) cause trouble with some
certification requirements and formal verification tools. I don't know
if these considerations played a part in embedded C++ design, but one
would think that this would be a consideration.