> LR>consulting job I get calls on during the last 2 years states they want
 > "C/C+
 > LR>programmers.  I keep thinking this is a mistake on the part of the
 > people
 > LR>coming out with kind of job spec but perhaps I am in error.
 > LR>Is it plausible to write such RT apps in C++ - and still meet real time
 > LR>criteria?  I am not sure.  Perhaps some else here can comment on this.
 > The author found numerous mistakes in the Intel ref books
 > concerning
 > instruction clock cycles, but as near as he could figure,
 > each call of
 > the ISR should take about 104 cycles.  The actual timed
 > result gave 148
 > cycles at best. At worst, he got 272 cycles.  Then, with the
 
Hi, Carey.  Thanks much for that detailed analysis.  I can appreciate those 
facts based on studies done.  I recall reading several years back now that 
Intel had problems w/ certain hardware instructions being very buggy.  Intel 
allegedly releases - for each new cpu  they come out with - a list of buggy 
hardware problems to certain vendors like Borland and MS and probably other 
compiler vendors.  This is so they can write code workarounds these buggy 
hardware instructions.  Unforutnately this article indicated that it is hard 
for anyone else to get on this vendor list for Intel's buggy hardware 
instructions.  Wha'?
 
As a result, I have studiously avoided writting any ass'y language code of 
any kind that goes into *my* personal software products.  I simply didn't 
want to take the many man-months involved investigating Intels hardware cpu 
instructions and decided to rely on Borland to do this for me - or some other 
compiler vendor.
 
This is for 'normal' apps - non real time.  RT apps are much more demanding 
so it follows that a programmer must learn every crook and cranny inside the 
hardware to write reliable code - in any language
IMHO.
 
So I asked myself, 'What benefits might accrue a client if I wrote RT apps in 
C++ as they claim they want done - and what benefit would accrue to me in 
terms of experience I can sell to other prospective clients in the future?'.
 
I simply have never believed the market hype about C++ or any other OOP's 
language having the benefit of 're-useable code' - even as desireous as that 
certainly is.
Yes this claim will benefit companies - until something 'better' comes along 
- like JAVA.  Now where does that 'reuseability benefit go'?  In this 
circumstance, companies are left with production code qritten in some OOP's 
language just like Cobol and RPG and PL-1 - nowhere.  It is fine as long as 
those production programs never need to be revised but who will revise them 
if everyone is doing Java some years hence?  Same for RT apps - or any apps 
for that matter.
It is like trying to 'freeze' a pgm written for the 286 - where do you buy 
286's now-a-days that is mainstream - where do you get the parts or the 
maintanence agreements?  (See next msg for continue)
---
---------------