I'm interested in programming languages well suited for embedded programming. In particular:
Is it possible to program embedded systems in C++? Or is it better to use pure C? Or is C++ OK only if some features of the language (e.g. RTTI, exceptions and templates) are excluded?
What about Java in this domain?
Thanks.
More often than not in embedded systems, the language you're programming in is determined by which compiler is actually available.
If you're hardware only has a C compiler, that's what you're going to use. IF it has a decent C++ compiler than there is really no reason to prefer C over C++.
I would dare say that Java isn't a very popular choice in embedded systems.
Both C and C++ can be used on embedded systems. If you do limit the features of C++ that you use, then it is going to use roughly the same speed and space as C. As for using these additional features, it really depends on your constraints. For example, if you are making a real-time system, then exceptions might not be a good idea, simply because considering the propagation time for exceptions and all the paths through which exceptions can possibly propagate can make hard real-time guarantees quite tough (although, then again, the ACE / Tao real-time CORBA implementation uses exceptions). While templates and RTTI can lead to larger programs, there is a lot of variability in embedded systems, and so depending on your resource constraints, this could be perfectly fine or unacceptable. The same goes for Java. Java (well, technically, the Java programming language with a subset of the Java API) is running on Android, for example, using the Dalvik VM. J2ME runs on a variety of embedded devices. Whether it will or will not work for your application, depends on your particular constraints.
c is the most common language used in embedded systems.
However, I think C++'s future lies in the embedded system domain. I think the C++0x standards will help in that resepect. So I wouldn't be surprised to see C++ used a lot more in this field.
Embedded programming these days spans a large range of applications.
Roughly, it goes from sensors/switches up to complete security systems.
You should base your language on the complexity and the hardware resources.
It is 1 of the choices next to HW (CPU,...), OS, protocols,...
possible choices:
It really boils down to what hardware platform you're operating on and hence what software platforms are open to you. For a lot of recent embedded kit - designed around a system-on-chip, a megabyte or two of RAM, a few devices - you really want a small operating system to manage the low level hardware while you concentrate on your application. Your choice of OS then constrains your available language set.
It's certainly possible to use C++ in the embedded space, but the full feature set of the language takes a lot of work to port correctly. For example, eCos is implemented in a mixture of C and what you might call the structural aspects of C++; support for RTTI, exceptions and the STL are lacking in the free version, though there are people working on this (and a commercial port available).
Similarly, it's possible to use Java - I know, I've ported a JVM to an embedded environment; it wasn't fun - though you usually get a cut-down Java language configuration, often something based on J2ME.
Is it possible to program embedded systems in C++?
Yes, of course, even on 8bit systems. C++ only has a slightly different run-time initialisation requirements than C, that being that before main() is invoked constructors for any static objects must be called. The overhead (not including the constructors themselves which is within your control) for that is tiny, though you do have to be careful since the order of construction is not defined.
With C++ you only pay for what you use (and much that is useful may be free). That is to say for example, a piece of C code that is also C++ compilable will generally require no more memory and execute no slower when compiled as C++ than when compiled as C. There are some elements of C++ that you may need to be careful with, but much of the most useful features come at little or no cost, and great benefit.
Or is it better to use pure C?
Possibly, in some cases. Some smaller 8 and even 16 bit targets have no C++ compiler (or at least not one of any repute), using C code will give greater portability should that be an issue. Moreover on severely resource constrained targets with small applications, the benefits that C++ can bring over C are minimal. The extra features in C++ (primarily those that enable OOP) make it suited to relatively large and complex software construction.
Or is C++ OK only if some features of the language (e.g. RTTI, exceptions and templates) are excluded?
The language features that may be acceptable depend entirely on the target and the application. If you are memory constrained, you might avoid expensive features or libraries, and even then it may depend on whether it is code or data space you are short of (on targets where these are separate). If the application is hard real-time, you would avoid those features and library classes that are non-deterministic.
In general, I suggest that if your target will be 32bit, always use C++ in preference to C, then cut your C++ to suit the memory and performance constraints. For smaller parts be a little more circumspect when choosing C++, though do not discount it altogether; it can make life easier.
If you do choose to use C++, make sure you have decent debugger hardware/software that is C++ aware. The relative ease with which complex software can be constructed in C++, make a decent debugger even more valuable. Not all tools in the embedded arena are C++ aware or capable.
I always recommend digging in the archives at Embedded.com on any embedded subject, it has a wealth of articles, including a number of just this question, including:
Regarding Java, I am no expert, but it has significant run-time requirements that make it unsuited to resource constrained systems. You will probably constrain yourself to relatively expensive hardware using Java. Its primary benefit is platform independence, but that portability does not extend to platforms that cannot support Java (of which there are many), so it is arguably less portable than a well designed C or C++ implementation with an abstracted hardware interface.
[edit] Concidentally I just received this in the TechOnline newsletter: Using C++ Efficiently in Embedded Applications
Or is C++ OK only if some features of the language (e.g. RTTI, exceptions and templates) are excluded?
It's good to be thinking along these lines. Compile-time complexity is not a big deal, but runtime complexity has a resource cost.
C++ facilitates class/namespace modularity (e.g. method foo() in more than one context) and instance modularity (member field bar belonging to more than one object), both of which are a big advantage in software design. There are also features like const, references, static casts, and templates, which can help enforce constraints and have little or no runtime cost.
I would not exclude templates. They're complex to think about and you need a compiler that handles them well, but the resource cost is almost all compile time -- what's going to "cost" you is the fact that each time you use a template with different class parameters, you produce a new set of code to instantiate member functions. But you would almost certainly have to do the same thing without templates. Furthermore, templates allow you to design and test libraries for general circumstances, in separate files that are instantiated at compile time rather than link time. Just to clarify that: templates allow you to have a file A.h that you test. Then you use it with file B.h or B.c to instantiate it at compile time. (A library would be linked in rather than compiled, and this makes it less flexible -- template methods can be optimized out so they do not incur a function call.) I've used templates in embedded systems to implement CRC code and fixed-point math: I can test the general code, put it in version control, and then reuse it multiple times by writing a simple class that derives from a template or has a template member field. The classic example of course is STL.
RTTI and exceptions: these add run-time complexity. I don't have a good idea of the resource cost but I expect RTTI would be fairly simple (just adds a type tag, costing extra space) whereas exceptions are probably beastly, involving stack unwinding.
virtual functions: I used to rule these out because of the memory + executiontime costs (minimal but still there), as well as the complexity of debugging, but they allow you to decouple objects from each other. If you don't use virtual functions, when an instance of one class (e.g. Foo) needs to execute code associated with an instance of another class (e.g. Bar), then the first class needs to know everything about the second (to compile Foo you need to have static linkage to all the methods in Bar) -- this adds a lot of tight coupling.
dynamic memory allocation: this is another big thing (that is in C as well), which we avoid like the plague at my company -- not only are there all sorts of errors that can arise, but the big runtime cost is the allocator/deallocator, and you've got to be willing and able to know what that cost is and accept it.
edit: I would love to use Java instead of C++ in the embedded world. Unfortunately my choices are limited and the runtime resource costs (code size, memory size, garbage-collecting time constraints) are too high in the space that I work in. My reason for using Java is less because of its runtime goodies and more for the fact that its software design is much cleaner, and the tools are much better (OMG! refactoring! woohoo!)... the key to me seems to lie with two things, which make C/C++ feel very clunky in comparison:
that everything is an object and all the methods are virtual, so you can lean heavily on the abstractions of interfaces.
the interface/implementation separation in Java is not this clunky ugly .c/.h file splitting thing that makes compilers so slow. In constrast, I use Java in Eclipse and it automatically compiles the code right as I edit it. This is huge! I find most of my errors right away. In C/C++ I have to wait for a whole compile cycle.
Someday I hope there will be a language between C/C++ and Java that provides the advantages of Java for software development, without requiring the bells and whistles that make Java so attractive for desktop/server applications but unattractive in most of the embedded world.
I think you already have a great answer by Clifford, but I'll add my experience to it. As was pointed out, the type of embedded system is the main driver. In Defense/Aerospace, C and Ada are the most popular embedded languages I encounter. Although as time goes on, I am seeing more C++ as the model based development becomes popular with the tools such as Rhapsody. In the jobs listing, seeing requirements for Object Oriented Design experience also leads me to believe that the market is slowly shifting to follow the trends of mainstream development.
If you're really interested in embedded development, I would start with C. It is pretty universal. Almost every OS, including real time OS's like Integrity, Nucleus, VxWorks, and embedded Linux, has a compiler and tools for it. The things you'll learn about pointers, memory management, etc... will translate into C++ development well in the embedded world at least.
As for Java, if you're interested in development for mobile platforms like smart phones, this is a solid choice (Android comes to mind). But in the world of Real Time Operating Systems, I haven't seen it.
On that note, that brings me to my last point and advice. If I wanted to jump into embedded programming (which I did just 4 years ago), I would focus on learning C from a low level point of view as mentioned above. Then, I would also learn what makes real time programming so difficult/different. I found the book below quite good at teaching you to think like an embedded programmer vs. an application developer. Good luck!
Someday I hope there will be a language between C/C++ and Java that provides the advantages of Java for software development, without requiring the bells and whistles that make Java so attractive for desktop/server applications but unattractive in most of the embedded world.
Would you be interested in an embedded Java that doesn't suffer from code size issues, memory size issues, and has a hard real-time garbage collector so you can meet your real-time deadlines? Our offering JamaicaVM is aimed at that.
Take a look at Aicas, Inc. at www.aicas.com. We have a patented hard real-time garbage collector, ahead-of-time static compiler and a smart linker that eliminates unused code during the build process.