|------------------------------------------------------------------| |"[..] | | | |It is exactly this problem that has me vacillating about whether | |a "highly structured C approach" would be better or worse than | |doing it in C++ (or other 4G HLL). I.e., which are "average Joes"| |least likely to screw up? :-/" | |------------------------------------------------------------------|
Do not use C. Do not use C++. Do not use average Joes.
Correct, but saying X has to be good, but its practical usage is decreasing is somewhat akin to nostalgia or wishful thinking.
I don't get your point. Did I say "Ada has to be good"? No, I pointed to real experience where Ada worked better than C/C++. Is Ada usage decreasing? I don't know; some users are switching from Ada to other languages, but some are staying with Ada, and there are also new users switching to Ada. AdaCore, the main developer of GNU Ada, seems to be doing well and expanding its compiler line. Anyway, the number of users of a tool is not a reliable indicator of the intrinsic quality of the tool; there are lots of rational and irrational reasons why users choose tools of lower quality -- initial cost, legacy code, inertia, ignorance, etc.
I admit to thinking wishfully that it would be nice if there were more Ada users.
;-)
If you have enough target memory you can probably afford to use C++ OO constructs and maybe venture into templates. Create some explicit sample code and check out what your compiler generates. Be aware that all C++ compilers for embedded targets are not created equally.
Try before you buy.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required