C or C++?

[Bill McGonigle]

On May 28, 2005, at 08:23, Jeffrey Creem wrote:

> 1) Well debugged code is probably not the real reason behind the 
> requirement. About 50% of the time when a gov't customer issues 
> requirements like this it is because they think it is cool and they 
> want to brag their their latest project is fully buzzword compliant. 
> If they wanted solid code they would have stuck with Ada (or gone with 
> Spark perhaps).

Hmm... the people I know who actually are developing software for the 
military are deploying on linux specifically for the stability (and 
relative ease of hardware interfacing).  The guys with stars on their 
shoulders don't actually know what OS it is - they're concerned with 
the application-level buzzwords, not the geek stuff.  Oh, and their 
systems are C++ based.  Note for the audience - if you're doing 
military work get yourself a decent version control system and a good 
build system.

The popular press stories about battleships being run by Windows NT 
certainly seems to be the minority, at least in embedded systems (but 
not non-embedded - CENTCOM, e.g., is heavily Windows-based for the 
human-interface systems).

As for DSP in Ada, you can get Ada front-ends for some DSP libraries, 
but DSP routines themselves are most often done in C/C++, specifically 
because of its 'portable assembly language' features.  Taking a look 
over at comp.lang.ada I see people complaining about the lack of ADA 
support on modern DSP chips.  I'm sure there's somebody somewhere who's 
trying to do DSP in Ada, that's what makes people great, but that 
doesn't seem to be the industry trend.

-Bill
-----
Bill McGonigle, Owner           Work: 603.448.4440
BFC Computing, LLC              Home: 603.448.1668
bill at bfccomputing.com           Mobile: 603.252.2606
http://www.bfccomputing.com/    Pager: 603.442.1833
AIM: wpmcgonigle                YIM: billmcgonigle

For fastest support contact, please follow:
http://bfccomputing.com/support_contact.html