These are my own personal views and not those of my company Phaedrus Systems see www.phaedsys.com which is where the full version of this column, with links etc, resides under the Documents tab.

 

At last I can report on some standards items that have been bubbling along for some time.  I have hinted at them in the past.   As I mentioned in the past standards are there for several reasons all of which ultimately come back to money.   The industry wants standards so they can commercially interact efficiently. This is why we all use the same mains plug in the UK, though mainland Europe, who trade together more easily, got one plug/socket for the whole of Europe.   There are also standards for safety. These are required so that the industry has guidelines to work to without having to re-invent processes, methods and liabilities every time thus saving money (and lives).  

 

In the late 1980’s despite the K&R book on C the software industry (and compiler makers in particular) needed a Standard for C.  Therefore it was done quickly and by the industrial players.   After that many other people got involved and C99 had an input from many people not just the tool makers and those with a financial interest in a standardised language.  The result was C99 contained a lot that a few people thought was “cool” but the industrial players were not interested in. Had they been the compiler makers would have implemented c99 in months rather than all but ignoring it for a decade.  Note the // for comments was implemented before it was in the Standard.

 

In BSI anyone can join the BSI language panels, you just walk in. Apart from the industrial players many others did who were “joe programmer” and also some who, whilst not actually having much in the way of qualifications or experience wanted to do something in standards. It was almost their hobby. You can meet people like this in many clubs and societies where it can be a substitute for a real career.

 

This caused some problems in the BSI C panel in particular. Because ISO Standard C compilers are not required by law or any commercial imperative (and for the embedded world we were quite happy with C90/95) the industrial players were less interested in putting lots of effort in to a panel that was messing about.  Therefore the BSI C panel in particular became lopsided.  There was a lot of infighting and BSI suspended the C panel two or three times due to the behaviour of some members.  Eventually about a year ago it was closed rather than suspended.  The problem is that many of the causes migrated to the panel above. So should BSI ever re-open the C panel it will be in the same mess as when it closed.  A new broom is required to sweep out the BSI languages group.

 

MISRA-C, C++, Auto-Code, Safety Analysis and Languages on the other hand have small teams of qualified and experienced people drawn from industry because the industry wanted the MISRA standard.  Initially MISRA was automotive now it is aerospace, automotive and industrial and tool vendors.

 

BTW the tool vendors watch each other and the rest of us watch them so there is no bias.   Someone commented that MISRA-C2 was MISRA-C1 for tool vendors.  Well, yes and no.  Tools work to rules, mechanically, they don’t use fuzzy logic or guesswork.  The tool vendors, in general, not just the ones on the MISRA panels were asking for clarifications on ambiguities in some of the rules.  Thus by clearing up the ambiguities the tool vendors were able to implement more of the rules. Then again so was everyone else.

 

So we had the state over the last few years where the BSI C panel was in a mess and the MISRA-C panel because it was working with industry was becoming more prominent. Not just in the UK but globally.

 

The result is that last month MISRA C and MISRA Languages now have formal Category-C liaison with ISO C (WG14) and the ISO Vulnerabilities panels (WG23).  MISRA-C++ is also going through the process and will hopefully have a formal liaison early in the New Year.  

 

MISRA does not represent the UK at ISO but is, a bit like the Vatican in Italy, in effect a separate country.  It is looking like other MISRA working groups will also apply for formal liaison to ISO panels and working groups.  This will mean that MISRA can have some influence on the new ISO standards and at the same time MISRA can adapt to the changes in the ISO standards.    Hopefully  it means that the ISO standards will be of more immediate use to industry and the MISRA standards will be applied to the new ISO standards, where appropriate, more rapidly.

 

Collaboration is what it is all about as the world is getting smaller.  I recently received an press release that started “ The new Europe-China Standards Information Platform (CESIP) designed by the Sustainable Development Association (SDA) with the support of the European Commission and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) was officially launched. Present were representatives from the European Commission DG Industry & Enterprise and DG Trade, EFTA, CEN, CENELEC and ETSI and, some National Standardization Bodies and Committees, European Federations, the Seconded European Standardization Expert in China, and SDA. The launch took place on 16 October 2009.”  It seems that “everyone”, I am sure Uncle Tom Cobbley is in that list somewhere!

 

Why is collaborating with China on standards important?  As I mentioned at the start: money. With standards trade and industry work more efficiently and more efficiently means more cost effectively. This comes back to money, without which YOU will not have a job.

 

If you are going to have to deal with China, and lets face it we all will in the next decade, if not already,  you might be interested in their web-based portal http://eu-china-standards.eu It is apparently a very valuable source of information regarding the relevant regulatory regime, standards and standardization systems in Europe and in China. The idea is to help SME’s work with China and should give information on the standards required in China.  There is more information here

http://www.sustainableda.org/standards%20platform.php

 

Whilst on the Far East and the changing shape of the world: There is a new ISO working group for embedded coding standards in its early stages. It comes from Japan, China, Thailand and India.  It also has liaison links to MISRA.    Certainly Japan, China and India are starting to drive things and both China and India are pushing major expansions in technology. They are putting huge resources into embedded technology.  Europe will have to work hard to keep up. 

 

Without getting political the UK needs to work closely as part of Europe not on its own. This is why conferences and shows are important for networking and ideas.   In fact we were at the UK Trade and Investment at the end of November. There were a lot of UK and European technology companies there.  There was as much business going on between exhibitors as visitors.    It may be worth a trip to Embedded World at Nuremberg in March.

 

Engineers have to realise that they are part of a company team that is in business. No business: no money: no company: no job. The competition knows this and they work efficiently to a common goal with less of an “us and them” view of management.  

 

Well that is it for this year.  A difficult year for many but with the coming spring it is forecast things in business will improve in Europe.  Have a break for the winter solstice and feasting. Relax and let the mind wander.  

 

 

Author Details and contact

 

Eur Ing Chris Hills BSc CEng MIET MBCS MIEEE  FRGS   FRSA is a Technical Specialist and can be reached at This Contact

 

Copyright Chris A Hills  2003 -2008
The right of Chris A Hills to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

 

 

 

> Robert Pirsig on the
  Metaphysis of Quality