From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5412c98a3943e746
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252
Received: by 10.68.129.133 with SMTP id nw5mr556997pbb.3.1330047802170;
        Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:43:22 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 h9ni1992pbe.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!q12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Verified compilers?
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:41:13 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <078983c8-845c-41d3-99e1-08968e9a1a9a@q12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
References: <op.v91cleyiule2fv@douda-yannick>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.230.151.194
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1330047798 25615 127.0.0.1 (24 Feb 2012 01:43:18
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:43:18 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: q12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=24.230.151.194;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESNKRC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1;
 rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/9.0.1,gzip(gfe)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-02-23T17:41:13-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Feb 21, 9:42=A0am, Yannick Duch=EAne (Hibou57)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Here is a quote, I=92m curious to read comments about (may be from Randy =
?)
>
> > According to Andrew Appel, "Part of Leroy=92s achievement is that he
> > makes it look like it's not so difficult after all: now that he's
> > found the right architecture for building verified compilers,
> > everyone will know how to do it."
>
> Quote source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compcert
>
> What do you think of this sentence, =93now that he's found the right
> architecture for building verified compilers, everyone will know how to d=
o
> it?=94
>
> --
> =93Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.=94 [1]
> =93Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.=94 [1]
> [1]: Epigrams on Programming =97 Alan J. =97 P. Yale University

I think the sentence shows a bit of solipsistic thinking on the part
of the writer's view of languages; as everyone on this thread ought to
know Ada's had verified compilers since its first implementations. (I
am using 'verified' and 'certified' rather interchangeably here, if
that's not the case though I'd like to hear what exactly the
difference is.)