From the first paragraph on wikipedia: "Its aims are to facilitate code safety, security, portability and reliability in the context of embedded systems, specifically those systems programmed in ISO C / C90 / C99."
Java has better much better code safety than C (no pointers, gc, etc.) is portable via a VM, and is not used in embedded systems. It's also not specifically ISO C. MISRA was built do address certain issues with a certain language, in a certain environment. You shouldn't apply everything it recommends blindly to another language just because they both have conditions and return statements.
If you can explain to me why java benefits from having a single return statement, I would consider it. Otherwise, I refuse to blindly follow guidelines that were designed for different problems.
If you read this thread again, you'll see that someone recommended early returns to reduce nesting. I replied that some people are not allowed to do that (eg because they have to follow MISRA). There is no need to quote Wikipedia. None of the points raised in this thread pertains only to one programming language. I'm sure you'll find at least one style guide forbidding multiple returns for every language that has return statements.
This is getting ridiculous. The reason I quoted wikipedia was to explain why "MISRA wasn't written with java in mind". Will you argue otherwise?
> None of the points raised in this thread pertains only to one programming language.
Except you replied to a java problem with a C style guide.
> I'm sure you'll find at least one style guide forbidding multiple returns for every language that has return statements.
And if that guide can explain why java benefits from having a single return statement, I would consider it. Otherwise, I refuse to follow guidelines that were designed for different problems or cosmetic reasons.
