Validation of MISRA?

[derek_farn]

Training:- New programmers need training anyway. A good coding standard stops bad habits and promotes a much better Engineering understanding of the language.

I think this statement is self evident. Now where is the evidence that MISRA C is a good coding standard?

Training on MISRA is not a cost as it saves time later.

Training is a cost, saving time later is a benefit. A cost/benefit analysis would evaluate whether the cost was worth the benefit. It might also evaluate whether the same cost could be spent on another kind of training for a greater benefit.

Besides using an automated static analyser should pick up most of the MISRA rules anyway... So the programmers are trained by the tools and this does not cost time or effort.

It will take a finite amount of time to read the messages generated by a tool, understand them and act n them. This is a cost, there may be a benefit as a result of investing in this cost. Again where is the cost/benefit analysis?

Code bloat: Space in source code is free. Space in the binary is important In fact I will dig out an example I have of a piece of code that is twice as long with more variables and another more compact, less readable, piece of code that does the same thing.

Ok, you have such code, but what does it have to do with MISRA C?

On the other side what evidence do you have that MISRA-C DOES bloat code and DOES cost (overall) for training etc.

Ok, so you have given up on your previous statement that there have been many studies showing the benefits of MISRA C.

I make no claims that MISRA C bloats code. Overall I think MISRA C is neutral with regard to code bloat, ie not bigger and not smaller.

With regard to training costs. Let's assume it takes somebody 10 minutes to read and understand a MISRA C rule, with say 120 rules that is 20 hours of time. I don't know many people who would put a zero cost on 20 hours of time. Where is the analysis showing that using MISRA C has a benefit of at least 20 hours of somebodies time?