←back to thread

The C++ standard for the F-35 Fighter Jet [video]

(www.youtube.com)
327 points AareyBaba | 3 comments | 07 Dec 25 18:07 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
barfoure ◴[07 Dec 25 18:29 UTC] No.46183842[source]▶
Do avionics in general subscribe to MISRA C/C++ or do they go even further with an additional (or different) approach?
replies(3): >>46183870 #>>46184021 #>>46184148 #
1. 4gotunameagain ◴[07 Dec 25 18:50 UTC] No.46184021[source]▶
Depends on the region. MISRA is widely adopted, and then there are the US MIL standards, ECSS for european aerospace stuff, do-178C for aviation..
replies(2): >>46188605 #>>46194080 #
2. westurner ◴[08 Dec 25 05:10 UTC] No.46188605[source]▶
/?hnlog awesome-safety-critical

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45562815 :

> awesome-safety-critical: https://awesome-safety-critical.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

From "Safe C++ proposal is not being continued" (2025) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45237019 :

> Safe C++ draft: https://safecpp.org/draft.html

Also there are efforts to standardize safe Rust; rust-lang/fls, rustfoundation/safety-critical-rust-consortium

> How does what FLS enables compare to these [unfortunately discontinued] Safe C++ proposals?

3. pacoWebConsult ◴[08 Dec 25 16:15 UTC] No.46194080[source]▶
DO-178c is not a coding standard, it's a process standard. Projects following DO-178c processes would adopt a coding standard as a part of the process, reviewing software deliverables adhere to those standards.