[Interest] Chasing a standard

[Jérôme Godbout]

I did a few medical application for orthopedic surgery, the coding standard is not a requirement, but only a simplest way to validate your software. I did used Qt into all of them and we manage to certify them for surgery room. It always depend on the level or risk your software lies on. Also if you can proof your software is robust enough (yeah it take a lot of testing and safe guard everywhere) you can pass the certification. JPL only make it easier to pass those since you proof in a easy way that it cannot goes wrong, that's about it.

JPL would be a good thing if you were to make a peacemaker for example. It's more for embedded C software where dynamic alloc is not allowed (just like car industries). If you plan on running C++ on a MCU with very limited resource, you are looking for trouble (it's doable, but the tests time will inflate more then what you will save from C to C++) and will need to take very much great care of the object you create and destroy. In other word, it's a bad idea, stick to C for embedded or critical component.

-----Original Message-----
From: Interest <interest-bounces+godboutj=amotus.ca at qt-project.org> On Behalf Of roland at logikalsolutions.com
Sent: November 5, 2018 10:55 AM
To: Jason H <jhihn at gmx.com>
Cc: interest <interest at qt-project.org>
Subject: Re: [Interest] Chasing a standard


Quoting Jason H <jhihn at gmx.com>:

>>
>> Very good catch.
>>
>> Battery powered embedded systems in the medical and industrial world 
>> have wretched dynamic memory allocation. If the underlying 
>> implementation does away with shallow/no-copy passing between threads 
>> for some std:: version which requires giahugic (given 512 MEG total 
>> working RAM) data sets with sluggish allocation (if enough memory 
>> exists at all) this is an extreme price.
>
> Medical and Space-based systems should use the NASA (JPL) coding 
> standard. Chief of which is no dynamic memory after initialization.
> So all your container arguments are moot.
> ( https://lars-lab.jpl.nasa.gov/JPL_Coding_Standard_C.pdf ) (Unless of 
> course you're using mysmic memory after initialization in a medical 
> device (But then, WHY!?))
>

I've never worked on a single medical device which utilized JPL. Not one. Not saying there isn't one somewhere in the world, but, I've never seen it. One could not use Qt in a medical device if strictly adhering to JPL. Something simple like an error message to syslog being built with a QString would violate such a standard. You couldn't fill in the values with .arg().

No, the container issue in medical device world isn't moot. It's a clear and present danger.



--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630) 205-1593

http://www.theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
http://www.infiniteexposure.net
http://www.johnsmith-book.com
http://www.logikalblog.com
http://www.interestingauthors.com/blog
http://lesedi.us

_______________________________________________
Interest mailing list
Interest at qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest