Thanks so much for taking the time on a thoughtful response.
> I can tell you that for us, at least 10 years ago, it was a remarkable success, and saved us a lot of time vs. developing in C or Ada, but that was for code running on large servers.
To what do you attribute the time savings? I'm interested in using the JVM because I'm thinking I'll have an advantage in debugging over C. Would that be true, in your experience? Do you think that it was easier to develop using the JVM under your quality system than it would have been under C or Ada?
> I haven't had experience with RTSJ on embedded devices. Many others have, but I doubt they read HN.
Yeah... Do you know of a good mailing list or forum for embedded systems?
It's just much easier to produce correct code in Java than in C (or even Ada). The bigger and more complex the software -- the bigger the gains (it's easy to write simple/small programs in any language). We also used NASA's open-source Java PathFinder to verify parts of the code (there are model checkers for C, too, and others for Java). This paper (https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/groups/rse/papers/lindstrom-rtembe...) describes applying JPF to the realtime scheduling aspects of RTSJ (something we didn't do).
> Do you know of a good mailing list or forum for embedded systems?
> I can tell you that for us, at least 10 years ago, it was a remarkable success, and saved us a lot of time vs. developing in C or Ada, but that was for code running on large servers.
To what do you attribute the time savings? I'm interested in using the JVM because I'm thinking I'll have an advantage in debugging over C. Would that be true, in your experience? Do you think that it was easier to develop using the JVM under your quality system than it would have been under C or Ada?
> I haven't had experience with RTSJ on embedded devices. Many others have, but I doubt they read HN.
Yeah... Do you know of a good mailing list or forum for embedded systems?