Myths

Contents[Show]

As I started working in the embedded environment I was astonished that there were so much prejudice against the usage of C++ in the embedded programming. The most are based on a wrong understanding of the programming language C++.

 

 

The Myths

lagerfeuer

First, I have to say a few words about the myths around C++ I often heard. Of course this post reflects my perception. Examples?

  • Templates inflate the code.
  • Objects must live on the heap
  • Exceptions are expensive.
  • C++ is too slow and needs too much memory.
  • C++ is too dangerous in safety critical systems.
  • You have to program object-oriented in C++.
  • C++ can only be used for applications.
  • The iostream library is too big; the Standard Template Library to slow.

Or to say it in one statement.

=> C++ is a nice toy but we are dealing with the serious challenges.

The list of (pre)judice is long consisting partially of half truth and untruth statements often stated by experienced C programmer. I will only refer to the untruth statements. The half truth statements are to a large extent questions due to the right usage of C++ and to a small extent questions of the implementation of the core and the libraries of C++. 

  • Objects must live on the heap.
    • Objects can be created on the stack or at an arbitrary position with the help of placement new.
  • C++ is to dangerous in safety critical systems.
    • Of course, it depends on the experience of the developer. But whoever uses C strings instead of C++ strings; uses C arrays instead of C++ arrays; uses macros instead of constant expressions or templates, can not argue that C++ is not well suited for safety critical systems. Honestly, the contrary holds. C++ has a lot to offer in safety critical systems. 
  • You have to program object-oriented in C++.
    • C++  is a multi-paradigm language. Therefore, you can solve your problem in an object-oriented, structured, functional, generic, or generative style.
  • C++ can only be used for applications.
    • C++ is for example used for fire extinguisher, for defibrillators, and cars. ARM maintains with  ARM GCC  the current GCC collection together with the gnu toolchain. Therefore, the current g++ compiler is available. The packages that is very frequently used is maintained by ARM for their processors that are the default architecture for the embedded world.

What's the reason for the half truth? I think, there are more reasons.

  • Old C++ compilers
    • Knowledge that is based on old C++ compilers of the last millennium. They implement the C++98 standard but they have a large potential for optimization.
  • Training deficit
    • On on hand many embedded programmer learned only C, on the other hand there is no time to experiment with new technologies.
  • Loss of expert state
    • You have to be brave to leave your area as C expert and continue the next day as a C++ novice.
  • Legacy code base in C
    • The existing code base is in C therefore is the obvious decision to fix a bug or implement a feature in the first place in C.
  • Many C experts
    • There are many C experts. They are training the novices and becoming the leaders.
  • Curse of the mono culture
    • I perceive the embedded world often as mono culture. I worked 15 years as a consultant in the auto mobile area and used about 10 languages. On the contrary, I used only 3 languages in the embedded area. 
  • Pressure of the standard
    • There are a lot of standards that you have to fulfil. The courage to use new technologies seems to be inversely proportional to the pressure of the standards. 
  • Insufficient knowledge about C++
    • Many developers have not the sufficient knowledge of the classical C++ and no knowledge of modern C++.

     

Maybe, I will polarize with this post. But If it helps to make the great features of modern C++ better known in the embedded world than I want to do it voluntarily. In the next post I compare the myths with the facts. In particular I will write about the Technical Report on C++ Performance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

title page smalltitle page small Go to Leanpub/cpplibrary "What every professional C++ programmer should know about the C++ standard library".   Get your e-book. Support my blog.

Comments   

0 #1 Maran 2016-10-03 02:10
"indirectly proportional" - perhaps you meant inversely proportional?
Quote
+1 #2 Rainer Grimm 2016-10-03 06:50
Quoting Maran:
"indirectly proportional" - perhaps you meant inversely proportional?

Thanks, you are right. Strange: the opposite of direct is not indirect in English. In German the expression indirekt proportional is fine.
Quote
+1 #3 Shafik Yaghmour 2016-10-12 19:46
Dan Saks's Cppcon 2016 talk “extern c: Talking to C Programmers about C++”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Sd8A6_fYU

Very much addresses the issue of how to talk to C programmers, especially in the embedded field about C++.
Quote
0 #4 may xuc do choi 2017-01-05 19:58
I am genuinely grateful to the holder of this web site who has shared this wonderful piece of writing at
here.
Quote

Add comment


My Newest E-Book

Latest comments

Subscribe to the newsletter (+ pdf bundle)

Blog archive

Source Code

Visitors

Today 170

All 277624

Currently are 148 guests and no members online